Margaret Ferrier: Between 2016-17 and 2025-26, more than 5,000 women in my constituency alone will be affected by the changes. Some of them will need to work six years longer than they anticipated. For the last  time, I ask the Minister to show some leadership. Rather than shrug his shoulders, will he step up to the mark and end this injustice?

Stephen Crabb: I totally disagree with the hon. Lady. We are continuing to roll out universal credit across Scotland, and the early results from Scottish jobcentres are very, very positive. As I said earlier, I had a very constructive and useful meeting last week with Angela Constance, the Scottish Minister with welfare responsibilities. I recognise that the Scottish Government have some separate choices and priorities, and we are committed to give them the powers to take those forward.

David Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be positively contemptuous of the clearly expressed will of the British people were the Government to refuse to trigger article 50? What does he feel would be the response of the British people at the next general election to anyone who encouraged showing such contempt to their views?

David Lammy: Is not the situation a bit more than ticklish? This is the biggest constitutional change for our country for half a century. Last week, Chilcot criticised the legal processes that led to the Iraq warm, criticised the way in which prerogative power worked in the run-up to that war and, most importantly, criticised the fact that there was not a sufficient plan for after the invasion had been completed. On that basis, is the Minister really saying that we should not come back to Parliament so that individual Members can reach a view on whether we should trigger article 50?

John Penrose: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that article 50 is unchartered waters. No one has done this before and we are, of necessity, having to address brand new problems. I will take the rest of his remarks as a submission to the incoming Prime Minister and her negotiating team. He is absolutely right that whatever decisions they make, and whatever process and timetable they lay out, those will have to be founded on one central principle that I hope we can all sign up to: we need to maximise the negotiating position and negotiating strength of this country as a whole to get the best deal possible.

Stephen Doughty: Most of my constituents in both Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan voted to remain. Although they are concerned about the result, they would be even more concerned to think that Parliament would have anything less than a full say in this process, not least because many Executive and legislative competencies are also devolved to the National Assembly. Will the Minister explain what specific role he expects Welsh Government Ministers and the Assembly itself to have in deciding the final proposal that is put before us?

Michael Gove: A central duty of the Ministry of Justice is security on our prison estate. It is imperative that the dedicated professionals who work in our prisons are kept safe. It is also critical that we safeguard the welfare of those who are in custody. It is therefore of profound concern to me that serious assaults against staff in prisons have been on the rise recently. In the 12 months to December 2015, there were 625 incidents, an increase of 31%.
Those who work in our prisons are idealistic public servants, who run the risk of assault and abuse every day but continue in their jobs because they are driven by a noble cause: they want to reform and rehabilitate offenders. That is why we must stand behind them. I know that members of the Prison Officers Association, and other trade unions, want rapid action to be taken to make their work safer; I understand their frustrations, and I am determined to help.
Violence in prisons has increased over recent years for a number of reasons. The nature of the offenders currently in custody is one factor: younger offenders who have been involved in gang-related activities pose a particular concern. Another factor is the widespread availability of new psychoactive substances or NPS—synthetically manufactured drugs which are more difficult to detect than traditional cannabis and opiates. The former chief inspector of prisons has said that NPS are
“now the most serious threat to the safety and security of jails.”
NPS consumption, and indeed violence in prison, is also often a consequence of prisoners’ boredom and frustration, and a lack of faith in the future.
There is no single solution to the problem we face, but we are taking steps to reform our prisons. To take account of our changing prison population, more than 2,800 new prison officers have been recruited since January 2015, a net increase of 530. To keep them safer, we are deploying body-worn cameras as additional protection for staff. In May, we outlawed new psychoactive substances and thus dramatically reduced the opportunities for easy profits to be made from their trade. In June, I allocated an extra £10 million in new funding for prison safety, and the money has gone direct to governors.
All these steps will, I believe, help improve safety, but there are two more critical points to make. First, I want to stress that my Department’s door will be open to staff and their representatives to ensure we work collaboratively to improve conditions for all in our prisons. Secondly, it is because I have seen for myself how important it is to change our prisons for the better that this Government have initiated a major reform programme. We will be replacing ageing and ineffective prisons with new establishments designed to foster rehabilitation. We will give governors greater scope to design regimes that encourage purposeful activity. We will ensure that prisoners are more effectively incentivised to turn their lives around. As we press ahead with this reform programme, I am confident we can ensure that our prisons can become what they should always be: safe and secure places of redemption and rehabilitation.

Andrew Slaughter: The situation on our prison estate continues to deteriorate, as the Secretary of State concedes, and I am sorry we have heard nothing from him today that we have not heard before.
Over the weekend, prison staff held crisis meetings across the country amid concerns about their security and safety in the workplace. Incidents of violence and disorder are reported on a daily basis. On Friday around 100 staff at HMP Liverpool met outside their prison at the start of their shift, a pattern that was repeated at many other prisons. A Ministry of Justice spokesman unhelpfully called the action “unlawful” despite admitting that it posed no security risk. I wonder whether the Secretary of State thinks that is an appropriate response to members of staff concerned about their welfare and that of the inmates. According to local staff at Liverpool prison, over the past 12 months there have been more assaults that in the previous 12 years. This includes one member of staff who was stabbed, while others have been spat at, punched and kicked and had urine and faeces thrown over them. On the same day, a squad of specialist prison service riot officers was sent into HMP Birmingham, and in a separate incident in the same prison on the same day a prisoner was found dead in his cell in unexplained circumstances. A Prison Officers Association spokesman said that between 5,000 and 6,000 prison officers had taken part in the pre-shift meetings, with the numbers showing the “strength of feeling” of its members.
The Secretary of State will also be aware that a freedom of information request last week revealed there had been five walkouts in the past five months, including from Wormwood Scrubs in my constituency. Following that walkout in May, and the serious assault on two officers and an urgent question here, the Secretary of State announced £10 million, but, frankly, he has been absent in the last few weeks and we have had an inadequate and reactive response to each crisis.
We need a full response to a growing and increasing crisis and, as the Secretary of State correctly says, a growing number of serious assaults. I hope if we do not hear it today, we will hear that full strategy, and hear it soon, for the safety of our prison officers and prisoners. If we do not have that, he is going to lose control fully of the prison estate.

Michael Fallon: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the NATO summit held in Warsaw last Friday and Saturday.
The 2015 strategic defence and security review reaffirmed NATO’s position at the heart of UK defence and security. The United Kingdom remains a leader within the alliance, with the second largest defence budget after the United States, and the largest in Europe. The range of challenges that the alliance faces, including Daesh, migration  and Russian belligerence, meant that this summit was  of major importance for Euro-Atlantic security. The overwhelming message from Warsaw was one of strength and unity. We believe that the summit has delivered an alliance that is now more capable and that projects stability beyond our borders, based on stronger partnerships, which collectively protect our citizens and defend Europe.
At the Wales summit in 2014, NATO agreed its readiness action plan to ensure that the alliance can respond swiftly and strongly to new challenges. The UK is at the forefront of these efforts: our Typhoons are currently conducting Baltic air-policing missions from Estonia; our ships are making a significant contribution to NATO’s naval forces: and we will lead NATO’s very high readiness joint taskforce next year, with 3,000 UK ground troops ready to deploy within days.
To demonstrate the allies’ solidarity, determination and ability to act in response to any aggression, Warsaw builds on the Wales’ commitments by delivering an enhanced forward presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. I am proud that the UK is one of four nations to lead a framework battalion alongside Canada, Germany and the United States. These battalions will be defensive in nature, but fully combat capable. The UK force will be located in Estonia with two UK companies, a headquarters element and equipment including armoured vehicles, Javelin anti-tank guided missiles and mortars. Denmark and France have said that they will provide troops to the UK battalion. In addition, we will also deploy a company group to Poland. That is our response to Russian aggression. NATO’s approach is based on balancing strong defence and dialogue. Dialogue remains right where it is in our interests to deliver hard messages to promote transparency and to build understanding to reduce risks of mis- calculation.
Credible alliance defence and deterrence depends on NATO’s ability to adapt to 21st-century threats through both nuclear and conventional forces. The summit recognised the important contribution that the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent makes to the overall security of the alliance. I can confirm that we expect the House to have the opportunity to vote to endorse the renewal of that deterrent next Monday.
Initiatives on cyber and hybrid warfare among others will give the alliance the capabilities that it needs to respond quickly and effectively. However, modern capabilities require appropriate funding and here good progress has been made against the defence investment pledge, a key commitment from Wales. Following this Government’s decision to spend 2% of GDP on defence and to increase the defence budget in each year of this  Parliament, cuts to defence spending across the alliance have now halted, with 20 allies now increasing defence spending, and eight allies committing in their national plans to reaching the 2% target.
Delivering the best for our country also means maximising the talent in our armed forces. The Prime Minister has accepted the recommendation of the Chief of the General Staff to open up ground close-combat roles to women. NATO’s role in preventing conflict and tackling problems at source has become ever more important as threats to alliance security grow out of instability and fragile or weak states. NATO’s defence capacity-building initiative, which was first announced in Wales, is a powerful tool in projecting stability and we in the United Kingdom continue to provide significant support to Georgia, Iraq and Jordan.
Building on that, the allies agreed that NATO will conduct training and capacity building inside Iraq. In Afghanistan, local forces are taking responsibility for providing security across their country. Our long-term commitment, as part of NATO’s Resolute Support mission, is crucial. Next year, we will increase our current troop contribution of 450 by 10% to help build the capacity of the Afghan security institutions.
The summit also reiterated its support for our European partners, including Ukraine and Georgia. I was delighted that Montenegro attended the summit as an observer, as a clear sign that NATO’s door remains open.
However, the scale of Europe’s security challenges means that NATO must work with a range of partners to counter them. This summit sent a strong message of NATO’s willingness to build strong relationships with other international institutions. I welcome the joint declaration by the NATO Secretary-General and the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission on NATO-EU co-operation. We continue to support a closer relationship between NATO and the EU to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Our strong message to our allies and our partners was that the result of the referendum will have no impact on any of our NATO commitments and that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. The United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union, but we are not reducing our commitment to European security—we are not turning our back on Europe or on the rest of the world.
HMS Mersey will deploy to the Aegean from late July to continue our support for NATO’s efforts to counter illegal migration. We will also provide a second ship—RFA Mounts Bay—to the EU’s Operation Sophia in the central Mediterranean, and NATO has agreed in principle to provide surveillance and reconnaissance support to that operation too.
It is a United Kingdom priority for NATO to do more against Daesh. NATO’s airborne warning and control system will now support the counter-Daesh coalition. In addition to our own assistance to the Government of national accord, we will consider what NATO can do in Libya—for example, through capacity building of the Libyan coastguard.
It is our firm view that the Warsaw summit successfully demonstrated that the alliance has the capacity, the will and the intent to respond to the range of threats and challenges that it may face. The summit also showed that Britain is stepping up its leading role in the alliance  by deploying more forces to NATO’s eastern borders and to NATO’s support to Afghanistan and in countering illegal migration. With that strong UK leadership, Warsaw will be remembered for the concrete steps that were taken to deliver a strong and unified alliance that remains the cornerstone of European defence and security. I commend this statement to the House.

Tom Blenkinsop: May I also welcome Unite’s decision to reconfirm the position that dates back to Ernest Bevin—the former general secretary of what was then the Transport and General Workers’ Union and today is Unite? Will the Secretary of State say more about the situation post-Brexit? Programmes such as that for the F-35 cost around $100 million per aircraft before the referendum. Will there be a rescheduling of the assessment of those programmes, as well as others in the strategic defence and security review?

Paul Flynn: Since we met in Committee last week, we have had the wonderful celebration of the Wales team’s great achievement in the European cup, which is a matter of enormous pride to us as a nation. I was delighted to see the celebrations on Saturday, which were the biggest thing to happen in Cardiff since VE-day and VJ-day, which I am sure we both remember, Mr Hoyle, if not since when Cardiff won the FA cup in 1926. These events will bring many benefits for the people of Wales. We feel pride not just in the skills of our team, but in the behaviour of our fans.
I saw a performance by the Secretary of State on television yesterday in which he was dancing with a ball on his head and foot. It seemed to be a wordless message; I did not quite get the point. Given these uncertain political times, he might have been auditioning for a future job as a circus performer, but perhaps there was a subliminal message that had he been substituted for Aaron Ramsey, the result of the Portugal game might have been different. None the less, we have had a moment of great happiness for our country. It is a joy to think that the beautiful national language in our anthem was probably heard by more people than at any time in its 3,000-year history. That intrigued many people, and Wales has been given a much sharper identity that will bring about practical benefits.
The Bill’s is proceeding in a consensual way. A great political tumult is going on about our ears, in various forms, but here is an oasis of calm and good sense, as all parties support a beneficial Bill that will give Wales further devolution. Progress on that is slow and endless, but the Bill is a step forward.
I will speak first to amendments 118 and 119. Amendment 118, together with consequential amendments to paragraph 6 of proposed new section 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 under schedule 1, and to paragraph 1 of proposed new schedule 7B under schedule 2, take us back to issues flowing from the Government’s insistence on retaining the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. In accepting that position, as we must following last Tuesday’s Division, we must now ensure that the Assembly has, within the single jurisdiction, powers that enable its legislation to be enforceable and effective, which is what amendment 118 would achieve.
In our view, the Bill as drafted would restrict the Assembly’s legislative competence inappropriately and reverse the competence given to the Assembly under the 2006 Act, section 108(5) of which allows the Assembly to make what might be termed “ancillary” provisions.  At present, the Assembly has competence to legislate on matters relating to one or more of the listed subjects in part 1 of schedule 7 to the 2006 Act. That Act also provides that the Assembly has powers to make provision about non-devolved matters when that is done to make a devolved provision effective or to enforce a provision if it is otherwise consequential or incidental to the devolved provision. My understanding is that this is not the UK Government’s intention, meaning that our old friend unintentional consequences might well apply.
I am sure that the Government do not, in common with all parties in the House, intend to prevent the Assembly from making provision to enforce or to make effective devolved legislation. However, the Bill currently either prevents that, or is unclear about to whether the Assembly will have the same ability as at present. Under the reserved power model, an Assembly Act will be outside competence if it relates to a reserved matter in proposed new schedule 7A. There is no express equivalent in the Bill to section 108(5) of the 2006 Act. Provisions relating to reserved matters will be outside competence and will not be law even if the intent of the provision in question is confined to making legislation effective or to enforce it. Other provisions are designed to address this issue, but Welsh Government officials have provided the Wales Office with several examples of when the Bill as drafted would have prevented uncontentious provisions in Assembly Acts from being included in that legislation.
These are not hypothetical problems. We have a strange history of the consequences of legislation. We have sometimes had legislation that was cumbersome and slow, while we have also seen judge-driven legislation involving Acts that were subject to adjudication by people outside Wales. Unless the Bill is amended as we propose, the Assembly’s ability to make its legislation enforceable and effective will be inappropriately constrained, and I do not believe that that is the Secretary of State’s intention. We shall not press the amendments to a Division, but I urge the Secretary of State to give very careful consideration to the issues that they raise, to instruct his officials to discuss them further with Welsh Government officials and to table amendments on Report that reflect an agreed position on this important issue.
Let me mention some of the general principles that should apply to our consideration of the schedule of reserved matters. In a reserved power model, it is for the UK Government to explain why the relevant subject matter must be reserved to the centre—to the UK Parliament and Government—for decision. Much of the schedule’s content is uncontroversial. It is common ground that matters such as foreign affairs, the armed forces and the UK’s security system should be determined at a UK level. On other matters, however, the situation is more contested. If reservations affect the Assembly’s existing competence, it is vital that the case for them is made explicitly and that the drafting of the relevant provision is precise and specific. That is essential to protect the Assembly’s ability to legislate coherently and within its competence.
Amendment 83 deals with policing, which is an interesting subject area in which change is desirable. The UK Government’s own Silk commission recommended devolution of policing on the basis that it is a public service that is a particular concern to people in their daily lives, and therefore similar to health, education  and the fire service. That conclusion was reached in the light of extensive evidence, including from professional police bodies, chief constables and police and crime commissioners. I understand that the four present PCCs in Wales are in favour of such a change, and opinion polls show clear public support for it.
Silk noted that devolution would improve accountability by aligning police responsibility with police funding, much of which already comes from devolved sources. In short, he argued that devolution would allow crime and the causes of crime to be tackled holistically under the overall policy framework of the Welsh Government. As Silk noted, present arrangements are “complex”, “incoherent” and “lack transparency”.
Policing is the only major front-line public service that is not at present the responsibility of the devolved institutions in Wales. That anomalous position means that it is significantly more difficult to achieve advantages of collaboration with other blue light services, which is strongly advocated for England in current Government policy, as well as with other relevant public services. Deleting the reservation would address that anomaly, but responsibility for counter-terrorism activity should not be devolved—I would continue to argue that it should be reserved under paragraph 31 of new schedule 7A. The Assembly would be able to legislate in respect of bodies such as the National Crime Agency and the British Transport police only with the consent of UK Ministers, because they are “public authorities” within the meaning of paragraph 8 of new schedule 7B, which restricts the Assembly’s powers in respect of such bodies.
After reflecting on the Silk commission’s recommendations, what is envisaged is the devolution of responsibilities predominantly for local policing. The key point is that devolution would enable police services in Wales to work even more closely alongside other devolved public bodies, with greater opportunities to secure improved community safety and crime prevention.
In England—this is a fine example on which we can base our recommendations—the UK Government are pushing forward the devolution of policing and justice powers with the greatest enthusiasm. Only last week, it was reported that the Minister responsible for prisons—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)—declared himself as
“a firm fan of devolution”.
Having signed over new powers to the mayor of Greater Manchester, he hailed
“a new dawn for the justice system”
that is
“run by locals, for locals”
and is an effective justice system that meets the needs of local people. However, in a reserved power model of devolution for Wales, there is an overriding imperative to keep the control of these matters in Whitehall. Where is the consistency and fair treatment for Wales? If something is good enough for Manchester, surely it is good enough for Wales.
Amendment 122 deals with antisocial behaviour. Whatever the outcome on policing, it is imperative that we do not reduce the Assembly’s existing competence for dealing with antisocial behaviour in devolved contexts. That is why there needs to be an amendment to paragraph 41 of new schedule 7A, which relates to antisocial behaviour. As drafted, the Bill would reserve  matters that are currently within the Assembly’s legislative competence, such as antisocial behavioural matters relating to housing or nuisance. That would represent a significant reduction of the Assembly’s existing competence, so the Welsh Government amendment would narrow the reservation to more closely reflect the current situation.
Amendment 123 is on the vexed subject of alcohol. As drafted, the Bill would reserve the sale and supply of alcohol, and the licensing of provision of entertainment and late-night refreshment. The amendment would deletion the reservations and allow the Assembly to legislate on those matters.
Alcohol misuse is a major public health issue and a principal cause of preventable death and illness in Wales. It can lead to a great many health and social harm problems, in particular for a significant minority of addicts and people who drink to excess for other reasons. Given those impacts and the direct link with devolved responsibility for public health and the NHS, there is a pressing need to tackle alcohol misuse, so the Assembly and Welsh Government must have the full range of tools at their disposal. Policies that control the way in which alcohol is sold and supplied are widely acknowledged to be among the most effective mechanisms for tackling alcohol-related harms. Regulating the availability of alcohol is an important way to reduce the harmful use of alcohol, particularly by tackling easy access to alcohol by vulnerable and high-risk groups. Licensing controls are an essential tool which must form part of the Welsh Government’s strategy to tackle alcohol- related abuse. The reservations place unnecessary and inappropriate constraints on action to tackle alcohol availability in Wales. Those powers are devolved in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, where similar public health challenges were faced, and they should also be devolved in Wales.
The Bill, as drafted, would enable the Assembly to legislate on ports and harbours, and would also transfer additional Executive functions in respect of them from the Secretary of State to Welsh Ministers. That is welcome, and is in line with the Silk recommendations. However, the Bill also creates a specific category of “reserved trust ports”, on which the Assembly could not legislate and in respect of which Welsh Ministers cannot exercise any powers. The Bill defines reserved trust ports in such a way that only Milford Haven would be such a port.
Why is that reservation necessary? Silk did not recommend reserving any trust port, and neither did the St David’s day Command Paper. When giving evidence on the draft Bill to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the then Secretary of State said that the purpose of the clause was to reserve Milford Haven specifically as a strategic energy port owing to its status, but the United Kingdom Government, inconsistently, declined to cite energy security as a policy driver for an investment in Milford Haven to support the sale of the Murco refinery in 2014. Aberdeen trust port could equally be seen as a strategic energy port, given the importance of North sea oil to the UK, yet it was devolved to the Scottish Government. Why on earth should the same not happen to Milford Haven? Why should its control not be devolved to the Welsh Assembly?
The concept of a reserved trust port is unnecessary and inappropriate, and should be removed from the Bill. That would enable the Assembly to have legislative competence in respect of all trust ports in Wales, including Milford Haven. As recommended by Silk and the Welsh Ministers, powers should, by virtue of the amendments, extend to Milford Haven, as they will to other harbours in the country.
Amendment 124 covers employment and industrial relations in devolved public services. The devolved public service workforce, comprising those working in “Wales public authorities” as defined in the Bill, or engaged in public services that are contracted out or otherwise procured by such authorities, are intrinsically inseparable from the services and functions of those authorities, all of which work within the devolved sphere. The workforce are the main means by which authorities carry out their functions and provide services for the public. There is a well-recognised link between good employment practices and industrial relations within authorities, and the quality of the services that they provide for the public.
As the Bill is drafted, the Assembly would not be able to legislate on workforce matters in devolved services. The amendment proposes an exception, so that the general reservation preventing the Assembly from legislating on matters relating to employment and industrial relations would not undermine the Assembly’s ability to legislate in respect of devolved public services and the devolved public service workforce. The amendment would not undermine the shared framework and protections in respect of employment and industrial relations spanning the private and public sectors across the United Kingdom, but would give the Assembly a chance to augment them where appropriate, to support the effective delivery of devolved public services by Wales public authorities.
Amendment 195 deals with teachers’ pay and conditions. We agree that this reservation should be omitted. Education has been a devolved matter since the establishment of the Assembly, and retaining the reservation would be anomalous by comparison with the other devolution settlements, as confirmed by the Silk commission. Teachers’ pay and conditions are an integral part of the school system, and closely interrelated to the devolved education function. Maintaining this reservation and the associated Secretary of State’s functions, when the two education systems in England and Wales are diverging year on year, makes it more difficult for the Welsh Government to deliver Welsh priorities with the national pay systems and structures set up to support a different, English employment model. This is the whole principle of devolution about which we all agree.
The UK Government’s academisation programme, for example, does not require the same statutory compliance with the “School teachers’ pay and conditions” document that is required for all maintained schools in Wales. Additionally, the freedom in England for academies not to comply with the same professional registration standards does not operate in Welsh maintained schools. This means that the School Teachers Review Body report every year tends to reflect a different educational context. The relevance of the current process, driven by the fact that the Secretary of State’s remit to the review body does not reflect Welsh issues, is diminishing in relation to Wales. The Assembly should have legislative competence in this matter, and Executive responsibility should transfer  to Welsh Ministers to allow for the development of an effective workforce strategy that reflects the needs of Welsh schools.
Water and sewerage are covered in amendments 128, 127 and 129, and we seek the deletion of the reservations 90 and 91. There are several different aspects to policy on water. The Secretary of State is well aware of how sensitive a matter this has been for generations; I think he agrees it has been a matter of great contention. I recall many years ago going to inspect public toilets in mid-Wales and seeing a notice on them saying, “Please flush twice; England needs our water.”
There has been a recognition that water is a great national resource of Wales that is available in great abundance. We have a great richness in water resources, but, sadly, there is the great history of Tryweryn and other matters that concerned us over many years, when Wales was plundered for its natural resources without compensation.

Paul Flynn: I think that would be entirely appropriate. The hon. Gentleman reminds us of matters that were subjects of great passion at that time. I believe that did—as many points in history have—concentrate the feelings of those in Wales about their national identity and what was seen to be an injustice against the people of Wales. I remember the events vividly.

Paul Flynn: I am very happy to record that. It is also worth mentioning that Tryweryn was opposed by every Welsh Member of this House. That opposition was not confined to any one group or party, although there were certain people who led it, as my hon. Friend has suggested. I look back with pride to the time when Labour MPs and peers took part in the early days of establishing a Welsh identity, particularly in the north Wales area. We had a large number of Welsh-speaking Labour MPs here, and they could only dream about a day like today when we are passing the legislation that their generation sadly failed to do, even though they and organisations such as Cymru Fydd were full of high hopes. We are now taking these steps forward, and the dreams of past generations are being fulfilled and honoured.
The scope of the Assembly’s legislative competence in this field is interesting. The Welsh Government are seeking full devolution of water and sewerage to be aligned with the geographical boundary with England,  as set out in the Silk report and the UK Government’s St David’s day Command Paper. A joint Governments water and sewerage devolution programme board was set up following the publication of the St David’s Day paper to consider the alignment of legislative competence with the national border. The programme focused on any impact on consumers and engaged with the regulator, consumer representatives, the water companies and both Governments. The work of the programme has now concluded, and I understand that the evidence confirms that these changes can be achieved with minimal impact on the consumers of water and sewerage services, so legislative competence for water should be aligned with the national border.
I shall take this opportunity to mention the related aspects of policy on water, including new clause 10 and the amendments to clause 44. Clause 44 would amend section 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 by adding to the grounds on which the Secretary of State can intervene to prevent the Presiding Officer from submitting an Assembly Bill for Royal Assent. Section 114 currently allows such intervention if, inter alia, the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the Bill contains provisions which might have a seriously adverse impact on water resources, supply or quality in England. The Wales Bill would add to this by allowing intervention if a Bill might have a seriously adverse impact on sewerage services or systems in England.
In the view of the Welsh Government, with which I totally agree, the intervention power in respect of water should be replaced by a memorandum of understanding between the Welsh and UK Governments on how cross-border water issues should be managed. This was also the view of the Silk commission, which recommended that
“a formal intergovernmental protocol should be established in relation to cross-border issues”.
It also recommended that
“the Secretary of State’s existing legislative and executive powers of intervention in relation to water should be removed in favour of mechanisms under the inter-governmental protocol”.
It follows that the Welsh Government are opposed to the proposed extension by clause 44 of these intervention powers to sewerage, and would also wish to see sections 114 and 152 of the 2006 Act amended to remove these intervention powers in relation to water.

David Jones: I will speak briefly to amendment 161 in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies). It would amend schedule 1 to the Bill by reserving the setting of speed limits in Wales and the design of road and traffic signs. The whole purpose of devolution should be to make life not more difficult but easier. We will be debating a great many practical amendments to the Bill this evening and this is one where the practical purpose of devolution would be better served by reserving such competences.
Dealing first with speed limits, I strongly suggest that it would be highly counter-productive for speed limits to differ between England and Wales because the road systems of England and Wales are closely integrated. Every day, many thousands of commuters travel backwards and forwards across the border. At certain times of year, such as holiday periods, there are considerable numbers of visitors from other parts of the United Kingdom and the continent of Europe. Such people are not confined to the principal arterial routes of the M4 and the A55, because several other important routes—going both east to west and north to south—cross the border. I am particularly thinking of the A483, the principal route between Manchester and Swansea that crosses and re-crosses the border at several points, and the A490, another well-known border route. To have different national speed limits at distances of possibly every two or three miles would be at the very least confusing and at the very worst positively dangerous.
The context of England and Wales is different from the context of England and Scotland because the integration of the road network between England and Wales is far closer. Given the practicalities, it makes no sense whatsoever to devolve the setting of speed limits to Cardiff.

David Jones: I think it is fair to say exactly that; the hon. Gentleman will remember the former chief constable of North Wales who generated substantial funds out of motorists’ inattention to speed limits. My point is not so much about local speed limits but about national speed limits. It is far more sensible if the national speed limit is set by the Department for Transport in London—if necessary, in consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government. Given that there is such a closely integrated main transport road network between the two nations, it makes no sense to have differential speed limits.
The second point I wish to make is about road signs and I do so principally on the same grounds; as we have such a closely integrated road network, there is the potential to cause considerable difficulty if the Welsh Government were to decide, for whatever reason, completely to redesign road signs. Again, that would be not only confusing, but positively dangerous. The competence for the design of road signs should remain with the DFT in London, although there should be consultation with the Welsh Government.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Welsh team on giving us the brightest, most joyful memories of the past few weeks—it is safe to say that.
I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues. They seek to amend schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and, thus, relate to clause 3 of this Bill, which deals with the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. The vast majority of our amendments in this group seek to omit certain reservations from that schedule. The amendments are intended in some cases to restore competence in areas that are already devolved. In others, they are intended to devolve competence to the Assembly in areas that are devolved to Scotland. If the Government are not prepared to give the Welsh Assembly parity with the Scottish Parliament in these areas, we would ask for specific reasons to be given in each instance. Both the Welsh Affairs Committee in this place and the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee have written reports on the draft Wales Bill, with both calling on the UK Government to provide individual justifications for each of the reservations now contained in schedule 7A. As such, it is a great disappointment to my colleagues and I that the Government have not seen fit to provide us with these justifications. I invite the Secretary of State to explain why the Government have not been forthcoming in this instance. If valid justifications cannot be provided, the Government should amend the schedule so as to omit those areas outlined in our amendments.
Plaid Cymru has not been alone in saying—over many years—that the National Assembly should move to a reserved powers model. Indeed, the independent, cross-party Silk commission made just such a recommendation. Legal experts and much of civil society in Wales, recognise that adopting a reserved powers model should, in theory, provide greater legal clarity and workability. The idea of moving towards a reserved powers model has also been taken in Wales to symbolise a shift in Westminster’s attitude towards the Assembly, because it was assumed to be synonymous with a maturing of relations between the two institutions. Rather than having to justify devolving an area of competence, Westminster would be compelled to justify reserving an area of law; again, that should have represented a significant attitudinal shift, and a recognition of greater parity. The sheer length of the list of reserved areas in schedule 1 has made a mockery of that notion.
It should therefore have come as no surprise to the Wales Office that the original draft Wales Bill was met with such dismay by the Welsh Assembly and by civil society in our nation. The dismayingly long list of reservations, and the way in which the Bill went so far in some cases as to curtail powers already devolved, would  fundamentally undermine the Assembly’s competence. It would do the opposite of what was, presumably, intended. Although we are grateful that the previous Secretary of State announced a pause in introducing the legislation, we still believe that schedule 7A shows a paucity of ambition for Wales and her legislature, and that is why we have drafted the amendments in this grouping.
Amendments 83, 86, 110 and 111 should be considered together, as they seek to devolve aspects of the justice system to the Assembly: the legal profession and legal services are dealt with in amendment 110; crime, public order and policing are dealt with in amendment 83; the rehabilitation of offenders is dealt with in amendment 86; and prisons and offender management are dealt with in amendment 111. As has been pointed out in this House on many occasions, and as was championed by my predecessor, Elfyn Llwyd, Wales is the only legislature that has no separate or distinct legal jurisdiction of its own. The matter of a separate legal jurisdiction was debated last week, so I will not repeat my arguments. Although I accept that the Tories fundamentally disagree with the need for a separate jurisdiction, I remain somewhat confused by the position of the official Opposition, who said last week that they supported it but abstained because the Government do not support it. If the official Opposition can only vote in favour of measures that are supported by the Government, they are not well fitted to being the official Opposition. However, given that our amendment was defeated last week, we will use the report stage of the Bill to bring forward proposals on a distinct, rather than separate, jurisdiction. I hope that the House will be more open to working with us when that time comes.
As is well known, the Silk commission recommended the devolution of policing and related areas of community safety and crime prevention, and my party is resolute in our standpoint that Wales, like the other nations of the United Kingdom, should have responsibility for its police forces.
We are presenting amendment 83 at a time when it is being proposed that policing is devolved to English city regions—Manchester and Liverpool, for example. If the policing of these cities can be held to account in a devolved landscape, why not the policing of Wales?
The First Minister of the devolved Assembly supports the devolution of policing. All four police and crime commissioners support the devolution of policing. I welcome what was said by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales earlier about the devolution of policing, and I argue strongly, therefore, that the time is right for that to move ahead, to enable the police of Wales to work directly to improve the lives and safety of the people of Wales, according to their unique needs and priorities. With that in mind, I intend to press amendment 83 to a Division.
We believe also that prisons and offender management should be devolved so that sentences, magistrates and probation can reflect the distinct priorities of a separate legal jurisdiction. Wales should have a prison system that meets the needs of our society so that decisions can be made which best support the needs of Welsh inmates and their families, and which allow for far better rehabilitation into our communities when inmates leave prison.

Liz Saville-Roberts: With the Bill we are moving ahead in small steps—inching forward, painfully. I await the time when we will move ahead in a way that grants sovereignty to the people of Wales.
Many of the amendments that I have discussed so far were recommended by the Silk commission, as I mentioned previously. Other amendments in the group include amendment 85, which would remove prostitution from the list of reserved powers; amendment 117, which would remove the reservation of knives; and amendment 109, which would remove the reservation of abortion, to bring Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. Again, I challenge the Secretary of State to stand up and tell us why he voted for Scotland to have those powers, but is now telling us in Wales that we cannot have equivalent powers.
Amendment 155 is distinct in that it seeks to clarify a reservation contained in schedule 7A, and not to omit it entirely. The amendment would clarify as a reserved matter “the Crown Prosecution Service”, rather than the broader term “prosecutors”, as currently drafted. This amendment is crucial, as the existing wording of the schedule could prohibit Assembly legislation from enabling devolved authorities, such as local authorities and Natural Resources Wales, to prosecute. I hope that the Government will take note of this distinction and amend the schedule accordingly.
Amendment 156 would remove the necessity test in relation to the law on reserved matters. The test of necessity is objectionable on grounds of clarity and workability, as it is capable of a number of different interpretations. One possible interpretation is extremely  restrictive and would represent a reduction in the Assembly’s current competence. The difference between a “reserved matter” and the “law on reserved matters” is explained in paragraphs 409 to 411 and 413 and 414 of the explanatory notes to the Bill.
The notes give the example of an Assembly Bill which related entirely to planning, which is not a reserved matter, but which modified a provision of a UK Act concerning telecommunications. That modification might be within the Assembly’s competence, as its purpose might relate entirely to planning, and so it would meet the test set out in new section 108A(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, inserted by clause 3. However, by modifying a provision of a UK Act of Parliament, which concerned a reserved matter, it would modify the “law on reserved matters”. The Assembly should be able to do so in a purely ancillary way, without also having to show that the modification made has
“no greater effect…than is necessary”.
An equivalent to the Bill provision is contained in the Scotland Act 1998. However, in the context of the Scottish devolution settlement, it is much less restrictive, as the Scottish Parliament has competence over considerably greater fields, including, of course, justice matters, and the Scottish system of civil and criminal law. Therefore, what might appear to be wider latitude for the Assembly would in practice still amount to narrower competence than that of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment 157 would remove the criminal law restriction in paragraph 4 of schedule 7B and replace it with a restriction which provides that the Assembly cannot modify criminal law unless that is for a purpose other than a reserved purpose. It reflects the Assembly’s current competence—that is, the criminal law is a silent subject, and the Assembly can modify the criminal law if it relates to a devolved subject, or if the modification is ancillary. The Assembly, therefore, could not modify the criminal law if it was for a reserved purpose, thus protecting the criminal law around the 200 or so reservations in the Bill. The amendment would also make it clear that the Assembly could not modify the criminal law for its own sake: there must be a devolved purpose behind the modification of the criminal law. It would align the criminal law restriction with the private law restriction in paragraph 3 of schedule 7B. This would provide consistency and clarity.
I have already spoken of my party’s dismay that the Bill threatens in places to dilute, rather than augment, the legislative competence of the Assembly. In this vein, a number of the amendments in this group seek to clarify the Assembly’s powers in relation to its internal functions, as well as its overall competence to legislate. Amendments 148 and 149 seek to restore the Assembly’s competence closer to its current level. Currently, the Assembly is able to affect, in a minor way, matters that are listed as exceptions from competence in schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Most of these exceptions have been converted into reservations in the proposed new settlement—for example, consumer protection. However, under the new settlement, the Assembly would have no competence to legislate in a way that touches on reserved matters at all.
The Assembly can currently legislate in relation to “silent subjects”—that is, topics that are not listed either as subjects of competence, or as exceptions from competence, in schedule 7 to GOWA. The Assembly  can do so only where it is also legislating on a subject that is specifically devolved by schedule 7. Many of these silent subjects—for example, employment rights and duties—have been converted into reservations in the Bill. The amendment would restore the Assembly’s competence to affect those topics in a purely ancillary way. However, that ancillary competence would still be narrower than the Assembly’s present competence to legislate on “silent subjects” when that legislation also relates to expressly devolved subjects.
In an attempt to allow the aforementioned institution to have control and oversight over its law making, amendment 6 would give the Assembly the power to consolidate, in both English and Welsh, the statutes containing the current constitutional settlement affecting Wales. No matter what our position on empowering the Assembly, I am sure we can all agree that it is important, whatever settlement we have, that that settlement is easily understood. It is disappointing that this Bill does not consolidate all existing legislation, but the amendment would allow the National Assembly to do that, in the interests of clarity. It would not allow the National Assembly to go beyond current legislation and broaden its competence.
Amendments 34 to 37 would amend paragraph 7 of schedule 2, which sets out the sections of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which the Assembly will have competence to modify. Paragraph 7(2)(d) specifically refers to those sections of part 5 of the 2006 Act which are amendable without restriction. As it stands, this does not include the ability to amend sections 120(1) or 124(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which provide for “relevant persons”—otherwise known as “direct funded bodies”—which receive funding directly from the Welsh consolidated fund. That means, for example, the Welsh Government, the Assembly Commission, the Auditor General and the public services ombudsman for Wales.
Amendments 35 and 36 would allow the Assembly competence to add to, but not remove from, the list of “relevant persons”. It would allow it to enable a body that is independent of the Welsh Government also to be financially independent where that is deemed appropriate. Any use of such competence to add to the “relevant persons” would require an Act of the Assembly.
Paragraph 7 of schedule 2 provides that the remaining provisions of part 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 are amendable where the amendment is incidental to or consequential on a provision of an Act of the Assembly relating to budgetary procedures, and the Secretary of State consents to that amendment. I see no reason why the consent of the Secretary of State should be required to an amendment that will have no impact beyond the Assembly’s financial procedures, so amendment 37 removes that requirement.
On the remaining amendments in this group tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, as I have already said, the majority of these amendments highlight areas of competence that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet for some unstated reason are being reserved to Westminster in the case of Wales. No justification has been given for reserving those matters. Consequently, I shall list a number of amendments: 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 106 and 103. I give the amendment numbers for a reason. It feels like the Secretary of State is allowing Whitehall to pick and choose the powers it wants to hold on to. We argue  strongly that he must draw up a list of reservations based on principles. These reservations make no practical sense and the absence of principle is obvious. They range from the reservation of dangerous dogs to hovercraft, sports grounds and health and safety. We need a reason why those areas should be reserved.
In addition, there are amendments 105, 107, 104, 112, 113 and 89, which is on Sunday trading and safeguards the long-standing tradition in Wales of protecting shop workers’ terms and conditions, and amendments 114 and 115. Over and above that, Plaid Cymru has long argued that Department for Work and Pensions functions should be devolved to the Assembly. Thus amendment 100 would devolve all working age benefits that are to be replaced by universal credit and any benefit that is introduced to replace universal credit. Amendments 101, 102, 108 and 99 all relate to those areas of DWP functions that we have long argued should be devolved.
Amendments 96, 61 to 63 and 69 deal with the newly created Welsh harbours of “reserved trust ports”. Once again, this creation has no justification. A port will now be devolved unless it has a turnover of above a certain threshold. Again, that is the case not for Scotland or Northern Ireland, but only for Wales. It is yet another example of Westminster holding on to as much power as possible while appearing to be offering significant devolution. Once again, I challenge the Secretary of State to tell us why this is necessary in Wales, when he voted to devolve full control to Scotland.
Amendment 2 is consequential on new clause 1, which seeks to devolve Executive and legislative competence of the Crown estate in Wales to the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales, as has been done in Scotland. New clause 7 would devolve general legislative competence in respect of agricultural, aquacultural and fisheries levies. Again, those are areas that Plaid Cymru has long argued should be devolved to the National Assembly.
Before I come to a close, I wish to note concerns expressed to me by the Welsh language commissioner regarding the Bill’s potential effect on the National Assembly’s powers to legislate in matters concerning the Welsh language. A possible effect of schedule 2 is that the National Assembly, should it wish to legislate for the Welsh language, would require the consent of the relevant UK Minister to confer, impose, modify or remove within that legislation the Welsh language functions of Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments and other reserved authorities. Under the current settlement, that ministerial consent is only required when legislating to impose Welsh language functions on Ministers of the Crown. The ministerial consent provisions of the Wales Bill in relation to the Welsh language would appear to be applicable to a wider range of persons than is currently the case, and would thus be more restrictive. I hope that that can be considered in the later stages of the Bill.
The amendments in this group should not be considered as mere separate, distinct “tweaks” to the Wales Bill. Rather, we present them as a collection of amendments, which, by their sheer number, make evident the many ways in which the current proposed legislation is deficient. No justification has been given by the Government as to why these many policy areas have been reserved, and no justification has been given as to why the Welsh Assembly should not be granted the same competence as the Scottish Parliament in these areas.
In the absence of these justifications, I respectfully urge the Government to amend their bill, and to present a bolder version of this legislation. This Government should not miss the opportunity to enable the Welsh Assembly to grow in competence and confidence. With responsibility comes capability. The Senedd should be given the power to legislate in these areas. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mark Williams: It is good to have this opportunity to say a few words about this mammoth group of amendments. I want to speak in support of a range of amendments to schedule 1 that remove certain reservations. I endorse amendment 83, on policing; amendment 112, on antisocial behaviour; amendment 84, on dangerous dogs; amendment 85, on prostitution; amendment 86, on the rehabilitation of offenders; amendment 117, on knives; amendment 123, on entertainment and late-night refreshment; amendment 116, on licensing; amendment 87, on the sale and supply of alcohol; the amendments on water and sewerage; amendment 89, on Sunday trading; amendment 90, on electricity; amendment 91, on coal; amendment 92, on heating and cooling; amendment 93, on energy conservation; amendment 94, on road transport; amendment 161, on speed limits; amendment 95, on rail services; amendment 141, on trust ports; amendment 97, on coastguards; amendment 98, on hovercraft; amendment 114, on the Children’s Commissioner; amendment 115, on teachers’ pay; amendment 113, on time; and amendment 112, on equal opportunities.
When I last read out the list of reservations in the Welsh Grand Committee, when we had the ill-fated draft Bill, it was somewhat longer, and I was saved from hyperventilation only by the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who helped me out. The Government should therefore be praised and congratulated to a small degree for reducing the length of the list of reservations, which is what the Select Committee said they should do.
I will not go too much into the specifics of the amendments, other than to say that I still question whether there was a write-around to various Departments. Who was calling the shots on the different subjects? Was it the former Secretary of State and his team? Was it our friends in the Assembly Government? Was it officials and Ministers in other Departments? Like my neighbours from Plaid Cymru, I would like to see the justification for the reservation list as it has been presented.
I was fully aware of the St David’s process. We looked through Silk systematically, and we looked at every one of Silk’s recommendations. If there was a consensus between the four parties, we would proceed; if there was not, we would not. However, in either eventuality, officials would go away and talk to Departments, so my hunch—my suspicion—is still that certain Departments were involved, not least the Department of Justice, given the discussions we had when we previously sat in Committee on a distinct or separate jurisdiction, and it is great to hear that, on Report, we will be discussing the need for a distinct jurisdiction in a way we did not then.
If these powers—these reservations—were controlled in Wales, would that mean the unravelling of our constitutional arrangement? Would it mean the end of the Union if we devolved the power over hovercraft, time or the Children’s Commissioner? Should there not be a principle—I suggest there should be—that if something is good enough to be devolved to Northern Ireland and Scotland, it should be devolved to Wales as well? Better still, perhaps we should have started from the principle that all powers are devolved and that it is the duty of the Wales Office and Westminster to argue the case for reserving them to Westminster. Whitehall would not have had a difficult time—from some of us at least, and I part company with my friends in Plaid Cymru on this —convincing us that defence should be reserved. However, I would love to hear the argument for why most of these other powers are still being reserved to this place.
Many of these items were referred to in Silk—for instance, ports and their development, harbour orders and the oversight of trust ports. There is no mention in Silk of reserved ports at Milford Haven. Silk also talked about speed limits and drink-driving limits. I respect those hon. Members who moved amendment 161, but they should have more faith in their Front Benchers, in the Department for Transport and, indeed, in our friends in the Cynulliad. I remember sitting, as the Liberal, in the St David’s day discussions at Gwydyr House, and the Conservatives, the Labour party and Plaid Cymru were all united on the Government’s suggestion. Members must have more faith in members of their own parties.
Silk talked about water and sewerage. He asserted that they should be devolved, but that the boundary for legislative competence should be aligned with the national boundary—a tall order indeed. He called for further consideration of the practical issues of alignment, with particular interest given to the interests of consumers, and for discussions with the regulator, consumer representatives, water companies and both Governments. When we discussed these matters, it was agreed that, to get consensus between the four parties, a joint Government water and sewerage devolution board would be established to consider aligning legislative competence with the national border. That work has now concluded, and I would be grateful to hear the Government’s interpretation of the conclusions. Is it not true that the conclusions that have been reached could be enacted with minimal impact on the consumers of water and sewerage services? Why, therefore, have this reservation?
I want to talk specifically about teachers’ pay and conditions. The issue is dear to my heart because I was a teacher before coming to this place. I taught in England and in the great county of Powys—indeed, I taught in the great constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, at an excellent school called Ysgol Llangorse. I had a seamless move across the border from England into Wales, and I was able to benefit from remaining on the same teaching pay spine—it must be said that I had a bit of a promotion at Llangorse, for which I was very grateful—with the same conditions. I should also say, although not to infuriate friends on the Conservative Benches, that I remain a very proud member of NASUWT and pay my subs regularly.
For some, those arrangements might be a case for retaining the status quo. Silk acknowledged, as have the Welsh Government—this is now getting a little dated,  but it was relevant then and is relevant now—that teachers’ pay and conditions are an integral aspect of the school system and should be closely related to the devolved education function. However, time has moved on with regard to the English and Welsh education systems. As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said—I think we might have a brief from the same source, but this is a valid point, so I will repeat it—priorities in Wales are different. The national pay systems and structures were established to support a different employment model. There is now not even consistency within England as academisation means that schools are not required to comply in the same way with the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. We also operate different professional registration standards. There is still a General Teaching Council for Wales—I still send off my £35 a year to be a member—but the General Teaching Council for England no longer exists. The freedom not to comply with the professional registration standards when working in academies in England does not operate in Welsh maintained schools. That all means that when the School Teachers Review Body reports each year, it reports on different things, reflecting an educational context that is not relevant to Wales. We need to recognise that changing policy in England means that the role of the School Teachers Review Body is diminishing in Wales.
Welsh Ministers need the capacity to deal with these issues. It is, very occasionally, refreshing to have brief opportunities to talk about the delivery of policy. As a former teacher, I suppose I should rely on the great Kirsty Williams, my colleague in the Cynulliad, to deliver on these matters. However, there are practical problems. The difficulty of recruiting head teachers in rural Wales and of keeping staff in village schools represents a real challenge. If we permit the National Assembly to have powers on teachers’ pay and conditions, it can address some of these concerns—if, of course, sufficient resources go to Wales as well. Silk was clear that teachers’ pay and conditions must be devolved to the National Assembly, although the issue of pensions stays here. That is why it is so important to remove, through amendment 115, the reservation in section N9 in proposed new schedule 7A.
The issue of time will still be reserved to this place. Those who have read the Bill from cover to cover will have seen, tucked away in section N4, the reservation on time: the Assembly Government will have no capacity to change:
“Timescales, time zones…the calendar…the date of Easter”
and the subject matter of the Summer Time Act 1972, as if there was ever a call to change those things. Section N4 also refers to bank holidays. The Committee may or may not recall—probably not; attendance was not great on St David’s day this year—that I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to devolve responsibility for bank holidays to the National Assembly. I have probably exchanged views with most Members on this subject, not least the Under-Secretary during a Westminster Hall debate some time ago. There are different views about this that will lead to a spirited debate, but the essential principle is that the designation of St David’s day as a bank holiday should be a matter not for us here, but for our colleagues in the Assembly. We now, unfortunately, have five parties in the National Assembly, but when there were four—the  Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, Labour, and Plaid Cymru—all endorsed the call for the Assembly to have that power.

Mark Williams: Without digging into the depths of the argument, I have made the position clear. Let the tourist industry make its representations to Ministers in our Cynulliad in Cardiff, not here. Let us not sit here, viceroy-like, dictating to the National Assembly. We should let the Assembly have that discussion with the tourist operatives, with the responsible Minister engaged with them, and then it can make the decision. It is a decision not for the right hon. Gentleman and me, but for our friends in the Assembly. That is what devolution means.
I want briefly to talk about policing. Silk said:
“policing and related areas of community safety and crime prevention should be devolved”.
I must describe—I do not know whether Chatham House rules applied to our discussions in Gwydyr House, but they probably did—the genuine shock and anguish that was felt when we reported back on this matter to our National Assembly colleagues. Two of us from each party were sitting in an office somewhere in this House that I had never been to where big board meetings happen. There was shock and dismay that matters of youth justice were not, as recommended by the Silk commission, followed through in the St David’s day document. I understand how the Government have reached this position, and how the process was set in train when they talked to their colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, but that does not negate the case. Youth justice, of all issues, given its links between education, skills and health as part of rehabilitation, was not followed through in a devolutionary way.
I will now conclude my remarks, although such is the list of reservations that we could go on for hours. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the concerns that many of us still have about the list, slightly shortened though it is.

Susan Elan Jones: One could talk about a lot of aspects in the Bill, as we know, because at one time or another most of us have done so. I will therefore concentrate on one particular amendment: amendment 123, which has been signed by my hon. Friend the shadow  Secretary of State and others, which concerns the devolution of licensing of the provision of entertainment and late-night refreshments, and the sale and supply of alcohol.
My hon. Friend is a great scholar of Welsh history, so I am surprised that he did not mention that the first Wales-only legislation came with the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881. That means that there is real sense of history behind this amendment. Most of us would agree that it makes perfect sense to devolve such provisions to the Assembly’s legislative competence so I, for one, strongly support the amendment. We must recognise that there needs to be a greater debate about this whole subject, because alcohol abuse has relevance to health services as well as local government services. We are not living in the days of the 1881 Act, following which areas voted on whether to be wet or dry. People from dry areas would often travel a little further along the lanes to get to a wet area. However, we are now dealing with problems of alcohol abuse and of pre-loading in many of our communities. Years ago, the mudiad dirwest—the Welsh temperance movement—would often decry other cultures and say, “Fancy the French—they give wine to their children!” In reality, alcohol and food have always gone together naturally in many continental cultures, but that is not the case for pre-loading. We need to think about that very seriously indeed.
We also need to consider our rural areas. I am sure that all of us take very seriously issues relating to drink or drug-driving. Those of us who represent rural and semi-rural areas will know from talking to our constituents and others that some people still take chances on country roads and drive when they are above the legal limit. I appreciate that the culture has changed for the better in many ways and that fewer people do that, but it is still a problem in many of our rural communities. Frankly, if someone in a car finds themselves on a narrow single lane faced by a drink-driver, their chances of survival are fairly low.
Devolving the relevant powers would affect how we consider health, social care and local government provision. Great problems are connected to alcohol and drug abuse. I do not wish to sound like a member of the Committee that considered the 1881 Act, because I think that many of us welcome wine, real ale and the conviviality provided by food and drink, but we do not welcome alcohol or drug abuse. We would, however, welcome sensible devolved provisions to make tackling those problems easier.

Alun Cairns: It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Hoyle, and to respond to Members’ comments about the amendments. I echo what was said about the Welsh football team. The Prime Minister has already congratulated them, and it is a pleasure for me to do so as Secretary of State for Wales.
The amendments go to the heart of the new devolution settlement for Wales that the Bill puts in place. Clause 3 and schedules 1 and 2 insert new section 108A and new schedules 7A and 7B into the Government of Wales Act 2006 to provide for a reserved powers model of Welsh devolution. The Bill devolves significant new powers and will enable the Welsh Government and Assembly Members to legislate on the things that really matter to Wales.
Clause 3 sets out the parameters of the legislative competence of the Assembly under the reserved powers model. An Act of the Assembly will be outside competence—it therefore will not be law—if it falls foul of any one of the five tests set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of new section 108A(2). I will first say something about how it is intended that each of those tests will work before turning to the proposed amendments to the clause.
The five tests are separate and independent assessments, each of which must be satisfied for a provision to be within competence. The first test is that an Assembly Act provision cannot form part of a legal jurisdiction other than that of England and Wales. We debated many aspects of that during our first day in Committee.
Test 2 is that an Assembly Act provision cannot apply
“otherwise than in relation to Wales”.
There is an exception to that prohibition, however, because new section 108A(3) states that an Assembly Act provision can apply beyond Wales, but only when it is ancillary to a provision that is within competence and if there is no greater effect beyond Wales than is necessary to give effect to that provision. It is worth noting that we have used the word “ancillary” as shorthand for the Assembly’s existing enforcement and consequential-type powers under section 108(5) of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
In the context of the draft Wales Bill, there was much debate about the words “necessity test”. Let me be clear that “necessary” does not mean that there would only ever be one option that would satisfy that test. There could be a number of different options to achieve the same policy objective, all of which could satisfy the requirement not to have effects beyond Wales that are more than necessary.
Test 3 is that an Assembly Act provision must not relate to a reserved matter listed in proposed new schedule 7A, which we will come to later. The question of whether an Assembly Act provision relates to a reserved matter is to be interpreted by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard to, among other things, the effect in all the circumstances set out in section 108A(6). The test is the same as that which currently applies in the context of the conferred powers model. It has become known as the “purpose test”.
Let me explain the technical issues that I have highlighted. Although the policy documents that give rise to an Assembly Bill may be relevant in determining its purpose, the essential question is what the Bill provision is seeking to achieve and what effect the provision has in legal, practical and policy terms. In other words, it will not be enough for the Welsh Government simply to assert the purpose of the provision. Why it is being enacted and what it actually does—that is what is really relevant in determining its purpose and, ultimately, whether an Assembly Act provision is within the Assembly’s legislative competence under test 3.
Test 4 is that an Assembly Act provision must not breach any of the restrictions in new schedule 7B, which I shall say more about in a moment. Finally, test 5 is the requirement that the Assembly Act provision must comply with the European convention on human rights and EU law. Those five tests represent clear, proportionate and  reasonably parameters on the Assembly’s legislative competence, and it is important that I have put them on the record.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Member is well aware that 90% of the Welsh population lives within 50 miles of the boundary between England and Wales. Clearly, some reservations are sensible so that people can walk their dogs across that boundary; otherwise, it could lead to significant complications. The hon. Member raised that specific practical example, and I am happy to maintain the dialogue on that.
Mr Hoyle, you would not believe it, but the vast majority of reservations are not contentious. They simply reflect those areas of policy that are best legislated on a Wales basis or at a UK level, and the further powers that are being devolved in the Bill. Constructive discussions on the reservations will continue between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, and, happily, with Opposition Members. I recognise that some reservations reflect the difference in policy between us. Others are subject to further detailed discussions, which I am happy to continue. In the context of the purpose test, the list of reservations before us today will ensure greater clarity and certainty in determining what is within the competence of the Assembly and what is not.
I turn now to the amendments to schedule 1.

Alun Cairns: I would like to make further progress, if I may.
A whole host of amendments have been tabled in relation to policing and justice. The St David’s day process found no consensus to devolve the criminal justice system in Wales. The Government gave a clear manifesto commitment that policing and criminal justice will remain reserved. In our first day in Committee last week, I made clear the Government’s commitment to maintain the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crime, public order and policing are inextricably linked to the criminal justice system. There already exists an All Wales Criminal Justice Board, which consults fully with the Welsh Government and extends to prison provision. The Welsh Government are also in regular dialogue with the National Offender Management Service about its functions.
Amendment 116, tabled by Plaid Cymru, and amendment 87, tabled by Labour, seek to remove the reservations for late night entertainment and alcohol licensing respectively. There was much debate within this group surrounding this. The Government consider both subjects to be closely connected to policing and maintaining public order. Given that policing and criminal justice remain reserved matters, late night entertainment and alcohol licensing should also be reserved under the principle that has been established.
Amendment 155, tabled by Plaid Cymru, seeks to reserve “the Crown Prosecution Service” rather than “prosecutors” in the general reservation on the single legal jurisdiction. There is no intention to prevent the Assembly from continuing to specify devolved prosecutors for devolved offences in the legislation. The reservation of prosecutors would not prevent the Assembly from legislating to, for example, make local authorities in Wales the prosecuting authority for particular devolved offences, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). I agree, however, with the underlying policy intention of the amendment and will consider further, before Report, whether the reservation of prosecutors should be modified. I am happy to return to this at that stage.
Government amendments 53 to 58, tabled in my name, seek to put Wales in the same position as Scotland in respect of the reservations in C5, which reserves all prohibition and regulation of imports and exports in and out of the United Kingdom. It does, however, allow the Assembly to control movements of certain things, such as plants, animals, foods and fertilisers, for specified purposes. The amendments seek to put the Assembly in the same position as the Scottish Parliament by extending its competence to regulate movement of these things both within Wales and in and out of Wales.
Significant attention has been given to transport reservations, with a number of amendments being tabled by both Plaid Cymru and the Labour party. The transport reservations were subject to close scrutiny when the Bill was at a draft stage, and there is no basis on which to devolve railway services, coastguard services or aspects of road transport, as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) proposes. It is not what the Silk commission recommended, and my focus has been on delivering powers for a purpose.
The amendments are also designed to remove the reservation of reserved trust ports, on which there has been further debate. The Bill devolves responsibility for all ports in Wales other than the largest, nationally significant trust ports. It applies a threshold in order to define reserved trust ports in Wales. In consequence, Milford Haven is expected to be the sole reserved trust port in Wales. Milford Haven is one of the UK’s largest leading energy ports, with around 62% of the nation’s liquefied natural gas passing through it, and it plays a crucial national role in securing the nation’s energy supplies. It is right that it should be a reserved trust port. That is in the interests of the United Kingdom and in the interests of Wales.
Amendment 161, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), is designed to move in the other direction by reserving speed limits and road traffic signs. The devolution of speed limits was a Silk commission recommendation, and there is consensus under the St David’s day process to proceed with its implementation. Traffic signs are devolved in Scotland following the Smith agreement and, given the wider competence of the Assembly and Welsh Ministers in relation to highways and transport matters, it is sensible to devolve responsibility for them to Wales.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the legislative background of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and the Bill seeks to expand on the 2006 Act in relation to employment rights. There was no intention in that Act to devolve those purposes, and we have continued the principle that was well established by the previous Labour Government.
I shall deal with amendments on three further areas. First, in relation to amendment 88, which was tabled by members of Plaid Cymru, and amendments 127 to 129 and new clause 10, the Government are considering the conclusions of the joint Governments’ programme board in relation to the Silk recommendations on water and sewerage. The joint committee reported only a couple of weeks ago, and it is only appropriate that the Government give proper, full consideration to that report. I hope that we can find a consensus among the Welsh Government and the opposition parties on a way forward, but there are a whole range of technical issues that need further consideration.
Secondly, in response to amendment 107, I assure the hon. Member for Arfon that the Assembly will have the competence to legislate in relation to party election broadcasts at Assembly and local government elections in Wales. Party political broadcasts are considered to be part of the conduct of elections, and there is no need to modify the broadcasting reservation to achieve that. Thirdly, on amendment 115, which relates to teachers’ pay, in principle I am in favour of devolving teachers’ pay and conditions, but there is a case for further discussions between the UK Government and the Welsh Government about how that can best be achieved.
Finally, new clause 1 and consequential amendment 2 are intended to devolve the management functions of the Crown Estate commissioners in relation to Wales to Welsh Ministers or to a person who is nominated by them. That broadly reflects the provisions in the Scotland Act 2016. The devolution of the Crown Estate in Scotland was recommended by cross-party consensus in the Smith agreement but, as hon. Members know, the St David’s day process found no similar consensus in respect of Wales.
Paragraph 1 of proposed new schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 will prevent an Assembly Act from modifying the law on reserved matters. Paragraph 2 will provide flexibility for an Assembly Act provision to be able to modify the law on reserved matters, where doing so is ancillary to a provision that does not relate to a reserved matter and there is no greater effect on reserved matters than is necessary to give effect to the purpose of the provision. The restriction  relating to the private law in paragraph 3 and the restriction concerning the criminal law in paragraph 4 are intended to provide a general level of protection for the unified legal system of England and Wales while enabling the Assembly to enforce its legislation.
The protected areas of private law include core subjects such as the law of contract and property. However, the Assembly is given the power to modify the private law where the purpose of doing so does not relate to a reserved matter. Importantly, the Assembly is not permitted to modify the private law for its own sake and cannot make wholesale changes to the private law, such as the wholesale rewriting of contract law. Any modification of the private law must be for a range of devolved purposes.
On the criminal law side, in paragraph 4 the serious offences protected from modification include treason, homicide offences, sexual offences and serious offences against the person. It is right that these serious offences remain consistent across the UK. In addition, the Assembly will not be able to alter the law that governs the existing framework of criminal law, such as sentencing and capacity to commit crimes.
I am conscious of the fact that a whole host of issues have been raised, so I will conclude. This has been a full and wide-ranging debate. I hope I have been able to assure the House that the reserved powers model will provide a clear, robust and lasting devolution settlement for Wales. I urge Opposition Members to withdraw amendment 118.

Guto Bebb: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Sir Alan.
Clause 22, alongside detailed technical provisions in part 2 of schedule 5, devolves onshore petroleum licensing in Wales to Welsh Ministers, fulfilling the St David’s Day commitment. Clause 23 is necessary to facilitate a smooth transfer of existing onshore licences. Clause 24 transfers to Welsh Ministers the regulation-making powers in the Infrastructure Act 2015 with respect to the right to use deep-level land below 300 metres for the purpose of exploiting onshore petroleum.
The St David’s Day agreement stated that responsibility for speed limits in Wales should be devolved. It also committed the Government to consider the Smith agreement, to determine which recommendations for Scotland should also apply to Wales. As a result of this work, powers over traffic signs, including pedestrian crossings, will also be devolved. Clause 25 and section E1 of schedule 1 devolve these powers by reserving only powers relating to the exemption of vehicles from speed limits and certain traffic signs—for example, emergency vehicles attending incidents.
Together, the clause and the schedule have the effect of devolving to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers legislative and executive competence in respect of substantially all the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 that concern speed limits and traffic signs. This means the Assembly will be able to legislate in respect of substantially all aspects of speed limits and traffic signs on all roads in Wales.
Clause 26 fulfils a St David’s Day commitment and implements a Silk commission recommendation to devolve the registration of local bus services, including the relevant functions of the traffic commissioner. Devolution of bus registration is achieved by the matter not being listed as a reserved matter in schedule 7A. Clause 26 gives effect to the devolution of the relevant traffic commissioner functions to Welsh Ministers. Clause 27 also fulfils a St David’s Day commitment and a Silk commission recommendation by devolving the regulation of taxi and private hire vehicle services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
This complements the devolution of legislative competence to the Assembly for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in new schedule 7A. Taxi and PHV services are currently licensed by local authorities under legislation that covers England and Wales outside London. Local licensing authorities set their own policies and standards. I therefore support these clauses standing part of the Bill.

Paul Flynn: These are considerable and weighty clauses that will bring significant benefits to the people of Wales. We are grateful for the improvements that have taken place as a result of the Government accepting the criticisms made of the draft Bill. Real progress is being made.
The main issues I wish to raise with this group of amendments involve energy, because there is a great opportunity for Wales to become a powerhouse for energy for the whole United Kingdom. For too long, we have neglected the vast energy of the tide that sweeps around the Welsh coast at different times of the day, providing pulses of energy that could be coupled with demand-responsive schemes such as pumped storage schemes in order to give completely demand-responsive electricity not only cleanly, but by providing renewable power in an entirely predictable way—the tide will always come in.
We have made huge strides in Wales on hydro schemes in Rheidol, Ffestiniog and Dinorwig. The possibility of using the topography of Wales to produce energy has been long neglected. When we look at the problems of the Port Talbot steelworks, we need to realise that washing along the shore of those steelworks is the highest rise and fall of tide in the world. They are in trouble because their energy is so expensive, yet a source of energy is available at their doorstep—free, British, eternal and absolutely predictable.
Amendments 130 to 132 deal with renewable energy schemes. These Welsh Government amendments would create a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before establishing or amending a renewable energy incentive scheme in Wales. As drafted, the clause excludes the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult in relation to the creation of a levy to fund an incentive scheme.
The obligation merely to consult is insufficient in respect of this important matter. The Energy Act 2013 provides that the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before making regulations in relation to contracts for difference. This is a fairly fresh concept, but it has been used widely by this Government and the previous one. Interested parties should also be consulted interested before a renewables obligation closure order is issued. When the UK Government announced the early closure of the renewables obligation scheme for onshore wind in 2015, there was no prior consultation with Welsh Ministers. We therefore think it essential that, as part of establishing an appropriate devolution settlement for energy, the requirement is put on a firmer and clearer footing. The amendment therefore provides that the Welsh Ministers’ agreement must be sought in relation to renewable energy incentive schemes in Wales either proposed or, in the case of existing schemes, proposed for amendment.
We further propose the omission of clause 46(3), which inappropriately limits the scope of the responsibility of the Secretary of State to engage constructively with Welsh Ministers. We see no reason, and none is offered in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, why that engagement should not extend to the consideration of matters relating to levies to fund renewable energy incentive schemes.
Amendments 144 and 147 relate to clause 51. Clause 51 provides the Secretary of State with order-making powers to make consequential provision following the enactment of the Wales Bill. This includes powers to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify primary or secondary legislation as he considers appropriate. Affirmative procedure in both Houses is provided for where the amendment or repeal of primary legislation is envisaged in any such order. There is, however, no provision for Assembly approval of a draft order that would repeal or modify Assembly legislation. Furthermore, as the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State could propose orders making modifications to the Acts of Parliament underpinning the Welsh devolution settlement without requiring the Assembly’s consent, although parliamentary consent would be needed. Even if such modifications were contained in a parliamentary Bill, the Assembly’s consent would be required. This is wrong in principle. If the Secretary of State wishes to take powers by order to make amendments, up to and including repeal, to Assembly legislation, that should be possible only with the consent of the Assembly itself. If orders are proposed that would make changes to the parliamentary legislation establishing the Welsh devolution settlement, they, too, should require Assembly consent before they can be made. The Welsh Government amendments would give effect to those important principles.
I welcome the agreement in this House across all parties. Plaid Cymru introduced a slightly tribal note by attacking Labour for not going to the same lengths that it has gone to in some of its amendments, but I think Labour has taken a pragmatic view. Where the Government made it clear they are not going to change their minds, we have tried to introduce amendments that are halfway between the Opposition and Government positions, and which might be acceptable to the Government. It should not be concluded from that that we have shown any lack of enthusiasm for the process of devolution.
Plaid Cymru’s amendment 74 relates to energy limits. The Welsh Government would have no powers over schemes above 350 MW. That is a very low level. It would include the tidal lagoon in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), but it would not include the two tidal lagoons planned for either side—the Cardiff side and the Newport side—of the River Usk. The two schemes have enormous possibilities to produce huge amounts of electricity, particularly if they are linked with pumped storage schemes in the valleys. If the pulse of electricity comes in the early hours of the morning when it is not required, the energy can be used to pump the water up to the adjacent hills very close to the shore in Newport, and then drawn down to produce electricity throughout the day. This is a form of energy production that we have long, long neglected. We have ignored the power of the tide and we have used other, polluting forms of energy.
We are admirably suited in Wales, because of our geography, to hydroelectric schemes. Three splendid schemes already function quietly: Ffestiniog, Rheidol, which is quite small, and Dinorwig. Dinorwig is the great battery of the nation, which is hugely valued by the National Grid. It knows that in times of peak demand, in breaks between television programmes and so on, it can press a button here in London and send the water cascading down the mountain in Dinorwig. These are functions that should be under the control of the Welsh Assembly, where there is the enthusiasm to make Wales the great powerhouse of the United Kingdom with energy that is green, clean, eternal and British.

Chris Davies: I rise to speak to my amendments 158, 159 and 160. The House knows I have many concerns about the Bill and I have stated them very clearly over the past few weeks and months.
Today, I turn to the devolving of wind energy to the Welsh Assembly, which is of great concern to the people of Brecon and Radnorshire in mid-Wales, whom I represent. This is not a common-sense approach to energy. I was very concerned to hear the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) state that Wales could be the energy centre of Great Britain. That gives the people I represent the fear of the whole of mid-Wales being covered with wind turbines. I am sure he is referring to other matters—I hope he is—but we have to remember the way that Cardiff Bay has looked at mid-Wales over the years. We are fearful that we will be littered, covered and blanketed with wind turbines.
We all have a great confidence in the Secretary of State, so I would like to see him have a veto over a UK-wide energy plan that is in the national interest. To have powers particular to the Welsh Assembly does not fit in with the strategic plan for power in Great Britain as a whole—that is the underlying concern. Cardiff Bay should not just be able to make those points and make arrangements for Wales; it needs to be done by Britain as a whole. A veto would give local people an appeal over proposals that may not be in the UK-wide interest. It would also allow local people to have a say in local decisions.
Before coming into this place, I was a councillor on Powys County Council. There was a possibility—more than a possibility—that planning permission was going to be granted to the whole of mid-Wales to be covered in turbines. The council had to contribute £4 million to fight a legal case against the Government of the day. That money would have been better spent—as we know, Powys is under-utilised as far as money from the Assembly is concerned—on providing local services to local people, instead of having to fight a legal case against wind turbines. For many reasons, I would therefore like the Secretary of State to hold a veto. I repeat the fact that we have confidence in him. We had confidence in his predecessors and I have no doubts that we will have confidence in future Secretaries of State, so let the power stay there.

Paul Flynn: Wales suffered for centuries the dirt, the pollution and the danger of extracting coal from the ground, while its comfort and the money made from it was enjoyed throughout the United Kingdom. Nobody wants to go back to that. The sources of power I specifically  mentioned were hydropower and tidal power. They are not only very good neighbours but they can enhance the landscape by providing lakes and other facilities. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the wider picture and see the possibilities, through the amendment, that the Welsh Government could develop.

Hywel Williams: I want to speak about amendments 74 to 80, 81 and 82, 151 and 154, which I tabled along with my hon. Friends.
I welcome clauses 22, 23 and 24, which confer competence on Welsh Ministers in relation to onshore petroleum licensing, including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, about which the Welsh people care a great deal. If the people of Wales do not want fracking, our Government should be able to ensure that it does not happen. Given that the Welsh Government and the National Assembly as a whole voted unanimously against fracking in Wales, I hope that the Secretary of State will work with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that until the Bill is passed, the United Kingdom Government honour that unanimous opposition in Wales and no new licences are issued there. I hope that, at the end of the debate, either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will give some indication that that will be the case.
I also welcome clause 26. Some time ago, I had a meeting with the traffic commissioner for Wales, who was based in Birmingham at the time. He was very unhappy about being traffic commissioner for Wales, and pointed out that not only did he work from Birmingham, but he lived in Derby, which is a considerable distance from Wales. Many years ago, the Welsh Affairs Committee called for the commissioner to be moved to Cardiff, and I am glad that the clause achieves a great deal more than that.
Amendments 74 and 75, and consequential amendments 76 to 80, would remove the 350 MW limit on the Welsh Government’s legislative competence in the field of energy. I would happily put a fiver on what is on the Under-Secretary of State’s notepad: my guess is that he intends to say that the limit was recommended by the Silk commission. I wish I had put that fiver down, because I see that the Under-Secretary is smiling.
Of course I accept that the Silk commission recommended the limit, but let us return for a moment to the purpose and the terms of the commission. It was set up by the coalition Government, with a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales. It consisted of one nominee from each of the four main parties at the time, including the Secretary of State’s and mine, along with various academic and other experts. It consulted widely and extensively with the political parties, civic society, academia and industry experts, as well as the public. Its two  reports represented a consensus, reflecting not only the views of the political parties but, crucially, those of the public and of experts—that is, the views of civic society in general.
With that purpose in mind, the players in all four political parties had to compromise, and all four—including the Secretary of State’s party and mine—did so, in order to achieve a national consensus. That was a contrast with the St David’s day process, in which I played a minor part. At the time, the Secretary of State appeared to hand a veto to each party in respect of what it wished to reject. Labour used its veto to the full, which reflected the stance of the then shadow Secretary of State, as a self-confessed “proud Unionist”. It seemed to me that the veto extended to Whitehall Departments, in terms of which matters they wanted to reserve.
As was clear from my earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, I am still slightly unconvinced about this process—

Hywel Williams: I was very glad to play a minor part in the St David’s day process, as was my colleague at the time, Elfyn Llwyd. I think there was a structural deficiency in that process, in that if individual parties wanted to veto a particular matter, they could do so—fine: that was what the process was about—but, to my mind at least, one party made rather a meal of that dispensation, and vetoed a great deal that could quite reasonably have been included. The criticism of the first draft of the Bill reflects that, but the current version is a great improvement, and I am happy to pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his predecessor for their achievement.
Some parties compromised on policing, and some on broadcasting. My party compromised on energy. We have always believed that Wales’s natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Wales, and that the people of Wales are best placed to make decisions about how best to put those resources to use. That is our historic stance. We have never believed in placing a limit on that principle, above which the people of Wales should no longer have a say. We never thought that that was a good idea, and never thought that it was necessary. However, we compromised, for the good of the Silk process and to ensure good order and progress. We agreed to the arbitrary limit of 350 MW in return for the support of others on policing and broadcasting.
The Secretary of State has chosen not to follow that consensual path, and to pick and choose from the Silk Commission’s recommendations which matters to accept and which to forgo. Indeed, he has chosen to ignore the majority of what Silk had to say. He cannot now reasonably defend that Westminster power grab and attack Plaid Cymru by claiming that he is only following the commission’s recommendations. We shall see what the Under-Secretary of State has to say about that one.
Clause 36 must be understood as it stands. Having voted to give Scotland complete control over its natural resources, with no limits, the Secretary of State is proposing to devolve energy in Wales only up to a limit of 350 MW, with anything above that threshold being reserved to Westminster. Why does he believe that Scottish natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Scotland, but Wales’s natural resources, above the limit, should be deemed to be the preserve of Westminster? Does he think that the people of Wales cannot be trusted with any energy projects above 350 MW? Do we suffer from some congenital infirmity in that respect? For that matter, why should it be 350 MW rather than 351, or 349? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will enlighten us. What factual evidence has he to justify that figure?
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) referred to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. It is proposed that the lagoon should be devolved to Wales, but that the proposed Cardiff and Colwyn Bay tidal lagoons, which are identical apart from scale, should be reserved to Westminster. What is the rhyme or reason for that? What practical reasons are there for such a distinction?
Let me give another practical example. In my constituency, there is a great capacity for hydro-electric power. The Dinorwig scheme, which has been mentioned, is a massive scheme that can power Manchester for five hours at the throwing of a switch. It takes eight seconds for the turbines to start turning. It is an astonishing scheme, which I think is one of the great energy production secrets of Wales. I understand that the switch is thrown in Connah’s Quay and not in London, and that it controls not only Dinorwig but the Stwlan facility in Blaenau Ffestiniog, as well as Maentwrog. So here we have an astonishingly good scheme and the potential for several more, some of the same scale but also some smaller ones.
A smaller scheme was proposed just outside Llanberis. The proposers came to see me and said that they were going to restrict it to 49 MW. When I asked them why they said that if it was 51 MW, it would get entangled in the processes down in Whitehall. When I met them recently they said that they are now proposing 350 MW. I asked why not 351 MW, and they said, “Because it would get entangled in the processes down in Whitehall.” That is a clear example.
I will give one further example that illustrates this point. When foot and mouth disease was active in Wales, I wrote to the Welsh Minister and the Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the autumn movement of livestock scheme. I got a reply from Cardiff within two weeks, and one in May—it was about the autumn movement of livestock scheme—from London. That is the sort of problem these people thought they might be struggling with. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider his position on this limit, and unless he comes up with a plausible answer, we will seek leave to divide the House on amendment 74.
Clause 38 is of course linked to clause 36, which we are seeking to amend, and we disagree with Government amendments 47 to 49 because they seek to add the 350 MW limit to clause 38. I welcome clause 39 which devolves power over onshore wind to Wales, but we are  not supportive of amendments 158 to 160, which seek to give the UK Government a veto. I do not think we need to spend too much time explaining why that is an unacceptable proposal. Members who have put their names to those amendments are well known for their opposition, which I respect and understand, but I disagree fundamentally with them.
While we welcome clause 46 which requires the Secretary of State to consult with Welsh Ministers before establishing or amending a renewable energy scheme as it relates to Wales, we fully support the amendment from the official Opposition which proposes that the Secretary of State should obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers rather than simply consult them. So we would support amendments 130 and 131 and 132. I do not know if it is the intention of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to press those amendments, but our support would be there.
Clauses 48 and 49 are welcome, but we are concerned about Government amendment 60, which again tries to impose this arbitrary limit of 350 MW on the Assembly’s competence. We welcome clause 22, which devolves some aspects of road transport, including speed limits, and likewise we welcome clauses 26 and 27 which devolve some responsibility over bus services and taxi regulation respectively.
I shall now turn to clause 28 and amendment 81, which amends clause 44. Clause 44 refers to sections 114 and 152 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which gives the Secretary of State for Wales a veto over any Acts or measures of the Assembly that might have a serious adverse impact on water quality or supply in England. This has been referred to in earlier debates. While the expectation was that this Bill would remove these sections from the Government of Wales Act, in fact it seems to extend the power of veto to cover sewerage services in England.
These sections embody the peculiar notion that Wales is somehow incapable of managing its own resources. Once again, it is exclusive to the Welsh settlement. Neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have such powers, so why must the Secretary of State for Wales have a veto over Welsh water? It makes Wales a special case—a lesser case. It continues and entrenches the status of Wales in Westminster. It protects the legality of English exploitation of Welsh resources, and avoids recognition of what was referred to earlier as a shameful past. I need not go into the history of the drowning of Capel Celyn in 1965, in which the entire community in that part of rural Wales was flooded, but such events remain perfectly legal. Removing sections 114 and 152 from the Government of Wales Act, as amendment 81 would do, would at long last ensure that the actions of this Parliament in 1965 could never be repeated. I will seek to divide the House on amendment 81, as I believe it is of particular importance to the people of Wales. For the same reasons, if called, we will be supporting amendments 125 and 126 tabled by the official Opposition, which seek to achieve the same aim.
Needless to say, we will not be supporting clause 44 stand part. We welcome Clauses 45, 47 and 50. If called, we will support Opposition amendments 144 to 147.
Amendment 82 tabled by Plaid Cymru would ensure that when exercising the power to amend, repeal, revoke or modify any Acts or measures of the National Assembly  for Wales, the Secretary of State must seek the permission of the National Assembly as well as both Houses of Parliament. Amendments 150 to 154, in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, are similar to amendment 82, but introduce separate provisions for the amendment, repeal or revocation of Acts of Parliament, Assembly primary legislation and Assembly subordinate legislation. They provide that where the Secretary of State uses the power in clause 51 to make regulations that amend or repeal an Assembly Act or Assembly measure, the regulations must be approved by the affirmative procedure in the Assembly as well as each House of Parliament. They make similar provision in respect of the Secretary of State using the power in clause 51 to make regulations that amend or revoke subordinate legislation made by Welsh Ministers or the Assembly. These regulations would be subject to the negative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. They also provide that the Assembly would have no role where the power in clause 51 was used to make regulations that amend or repeal an Act of Parliament or amend or revoke non-Assembly subordinate legislation.
We would be happy to support Government amendments 59, 50 and 51, but we do not see why the Secretary of State should make an exception in respect of when the clause 17 functions of Welsh Ministers should come into force. Why should everything else come into force two months after Royal Assent, but for clause 17 we will have to wait until the Secretary of State says so? Perhaps the Under-Secretary might explain.
We agree with Opposition amendment 12, which is linked with new clause 6, to extend the Welsh Government’s borrowing capacity. It is absolutely right that the Welsh Government should have fiscal levers at their disposal to facilitate economic growth in all corners of our country—and, I stress, all corners not just in the heartlands of south-east Wales.
Plaid Cymru has taken this Bill extremely seriously. We have tabled a great number of amendments. We shall press two amendments to a vote this evening and, with leave, new clause 2 if there is sufficient time. I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary’s response.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that intervention because it provides a great insight into the Secretary of State’s thinking. If that is his argument on fiscal powers, he should align himself with the Labour party, which opposes Wales having income tax powers for exactly the same reason. This is about whether one believes that the Welsh Government can use such levers effectively to create jobs in our country. That intervention is indicative of the Secretary of State’ mindset.
Given that corporation tax is devolved in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Secretary of State will do his job, stand up for Wales and make it a devolved tax in Wales, as was recommended by the Silk commission’s report.

Guto Bebb: We have had a decent debate about the issues relating to this group of amendments. Clause 36 is a carefully drafted clause, which, again, gives effect to the St David’s day commitment on energy consenting. The combined effect of subsections (1) to (6) is to disapply the Secretary of State’s power under the Planning Act 2008 to grant development consent for electricity generating stations in Wales and in the Welsh inshore and offshore zones, not exceeding a capacity of 350MW. This is a compromise, but one based on the views expressed by Silk and the St David’s day agreement, which was attempting to reach a consensus. Development consenting for all onshore wind-powered generating stations in Wales has already been devolved through the Energy Act 2016, and I shall say more about that in a moment in relation to some of the amendments put forward by Conservative Members.
Amendments 74 to 80 were tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), and they again seek to reopen the issue of the political consensus we found under Silk and as part of the St David’s day process. It is important that we recognise that the Bill is attempting to move forward on the basis of consensus, whereas the amendments are trying to open up the whole issue once more. Clearly, we have to accept that the electricity transmission system in England and Wales is thoroughly integrated, and we must keep that in mind when we legislate on this issue. It is also important to highlight that the consensus on the 350MW figure is appropriate, given that we are dealing with a system that is interrelated and interdependent. It is moving significant changes and decision-making powers to Wales, but it is also recognising the importance of what might be seen as a strategic energy development. One of more than 350MW is considered to be strategic, whereas one of less than that can be done on a Welsh basis.
We have rightly talked a lot about hydroelectric generation in this debate. I am proud that my constituency has several sites that are open to development for hydro energy production. A 350MW rule would imply that all of those developments could be decided upon in Wales, which is a major development. The biggest challenge we would have would be ensuring that the electricity infrastructure to take energy out of the Conwy valley was up to speed.

Guto Bebb: I am very sympathetic to the concept of tidal lagoons, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a review is being undertaken at this time and I would not want to prejudge it. It is being undertaken by Charles Hendry, who is well respected across this House.
Clause 37 allows Welsh Ministers to make declarations extinguishing public rights of navigation, so as to ensure safety out to the seaward limits of the territorial sea in relation to generating stations up to 350MW. Clause 38 aligns, in a single authority, the ability to consent both to a generating station itself and the associated overhead line which would connect that station to the transmission system. It does so by removing consenting applicable requirements under either the Electricity Act 1989 or the Planning Act 2008 for certain associated overhead lines with a transmission capacity of up to 132kV necessary for connecting generating stations of up to 350MW capacity. This is an attempt to generate a one-stop shop for energy opportunities of that size in Wales. The Silk commission rightly identified that a one-stop shop should be developed, and the Bill tries to deliver that in a Welsh context.
Government amendments 47 to 49 correct an inadvertent constraint in the current drafting of clause 38 by removing the presumption that Welsh Ministers are the devolved consenting authority.
On clause 39, the Planning Act 2008 introduced the concept of “associated development”—development which the Secretary of State could consent to as part of the development consent orders which underpin and facilitate major development projects. The ability to grant associated development allows for more of the complete projects to be delivered within a single consent, to try to make the situation easier for developers. In Wales, the benefit of this approach has hitherto been restricted only to certain activities around the construction of underground gas storage facilities. Clause 39 amends relevant definitions in the Planning Act 2008 to extend the scope of associated development in Wales to include activities accompanying generating projects above 350 MW and larger overhead lines connections of 132 kV. Again, it fulfils a St David’s day commitment and implements a Silk commission recommendation.
I think it is fair to say that amendments 158 to 160, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), seek to re-open matters which have already been debated in the context of the Energy Act 2016. That Act delivered the Government’s manifesto commitment to give local people the final say on wind farm applications. It also ensured that in Wales it is for the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to decide how decisions are taken. I see no basis for rowing back from that position now, but I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that the Welsh Government should ensure that local people in Wales have the final say on these matters.
In our discussion of the Bill, we have talked about the importance of financial accountability, but this is also a case of political accountability. In my constituency, Aberconwy, we had the development of the Gwynt y Môr wind farm. I think I am right in saying that every single councillor in the Conwy local authority area voted against the development, but it was imposed by diktat by the then Energy Secretary. The important point is that the changes and the power given to local communities as a result of Acts passed by the coalition Government were a direct response to that political need for change. If the Assembly Government are guilty of taking powers into their own hands, there is political accountability there which needs to be challenged and needs to be part of the political discourse in Wales.
The Energy Act has ended subsidy for new onshore wind. If an onshore wind project does not already have planning permission, it is not going to be eligible for subsidy under the renewables obligation. In all the circumstances, therefore, the amendment should not be pressed to a vote.
Clauses 40 and 41 devolve further powers to Welsh Ministers in respect of equal opportunities. The powers follow as closely as possible the approach adopted in Scotland, but the two approaches are not identical. Clause 40 covers the operation of the public sector equalities duty. It removes the requirement in section 152 of the Equality Act 2010 that the Welsh Ministers consult a Minister of the Crown prior to making an order amending the list of Welsh public authorities that are subject to the duty, replacing it with a requirement to inform.
Clause 41 provides for the commencement and implementation of part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in Wales. Part 1 imposes a duty on certain public bodies to have due regard to socio-economic considerations when making strategic decisions. Clause 41 allows the Welsh Ministers to bring part 1 into force in Wales on a date of their choosing. It also enables the Welsh Ministers to amend the 2010 Act to add or remove relevant authorities that are to be subject to the duty, without first consulting a Minister of the Crown.
Clauses 42 and 43 extend Welsh Ministers’ existing responsibilities for marine licensing and marine conservation in the Welsh inshore region to the Welsh offshore region. The clauses fulfil St David’s Day commitments and implement recommendations in the Silk commission’s second report.
Clause 44 enables the Secretary of State to intervene on legislation or Executive activities where she has reasonable grounds to believe that these might have a serious adverse impact on sewerage in England. As part of this Bill, legislative competence for sewerage will be  devolved, subject to the matters set out in C15 of new schedule 7A. These powers of intervention are similar to those already held by the Secretary of State in relation to water. They may be used where an Act of the Assembly, or the exercise, or failure to exercise, a relevant function might have a serious adverse impact on sewerage services and systems in England.
Amendments 81,125 and 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon, seek to take forward the recommendations of the Silk commission in relation to water and sewerage. The Silk report recognised that water and sewerage devolution is complex and that further work to consider the practical implications was needed. The Government set up the Joint Governments Programme Board with the Welsh Government to look at these issues and report on the likely effects that implementing the commission’s recommendations would have on the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services, consumers and the water undertakers themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained earlier, that work has concluded and the Government are considering the evidence before deciding whether and how the recommendations will be taken forward. We will consider carefully the interests of customers and businesses on both sides of the border before reaching that decision. It should be stressed that this issue is under consideration.

Guto Bebb: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Her recollection is correct. We have only just received the report, so consideration of it must now take place. It is now with the Wales Office, and, after it has been considered, we will, in the manner described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, discuss the contents of the report with other parties who have an interest in the Wales Bill.
Clause 45 fulfils a St David’s day commitment and a Silk commission recommendation to devolve to Welsh Ministers the power to make building regulations for “excepted energy buildings” such as generating stations and gas storage facilities. Clause 46 formalises the current differing arrangements for consulting the Welsh Ministers on renewable energy incentive schemes.
Amendments 130 to 132, which were submitted by the Opposition, would require the Secretary of State to gain the consent of Welsh Ministers, rather than to consult them. Energy policy is a reserved matter as regards Great Britain. Maintaining consistency provides for workable schemes, certainty to the industry and fairness to consumers. It is right that responsibility for renewable energy incentive schemes should rest with UK Ministers. I hope that that comment has been welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies).
Clause 47 implements for Wales the conclusions of the HM Treasury review of the Office for Budget Responsibility, published last year. The OBR has a  statutory duty to carry out a number of core functions, including to produce fiscal and economic forecasts. This clause ensures that it will continue to receive information from Wales as necessary to fulfil that duty. It reflects the increased fiscal devolution to the Assembly, and the Welsh Government’s competence for economic development. These roles mean that the OBR is more likely to require and use information held in Wales to fulfil its remit.
Clause 48 increases the accountability of Ofgem to the Assembly. Clause 49 provides that where a coal operator wants to mine in Wales, it must seek the approval of Welsh Ministers as part of its application for a licence. Clause 50 increases the accountability of Ofcom to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers. It goes further by giving Welsh Ministers the power to appoint one member to the Ofcom board who is capable of representing the interests of Wales.
Clauses 51 and 52 and schedule 5 and 6 make consequential and transitional provision relating to the Bill. Clause 51 allows the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments by regulations in connection with this Bill, and through amendments 82, 144 to 147 and 150 to 154, the Opposition parties are seeking to give the Assembly a role in approving those regulations. Amendments 144 to 147 would require the Assembly also to approve those regulations where such consequential amendments are within the Assembly’s competence or where they alter the Assembly’s competence. Amendments 82 and 150 to 154 would achieve the same with regard to consequential amendments that amend Acts or measures of the Assembly or secondary legislation made by the Welsh Ministers.
Clause 51 is a fairly typical consequential provision that ensures that the Government are able to tidy up the statute book where required in connection with this Bill. Indeed, similar provisions are included in Assembly legislation as well. Giving the Assembly a role in approving the Secretary of State’s regulations made under this clause would be as unjustified as giving Parliament a role in approving Welsh Ministers’ regulations made under Assembly Acts. It would also make the process far more complicated and time consuming than it needs to be. In reality, we would discuss any proposed changes that impacted on the Assembly’s competence with the Welsh Government before regulations were laid.
Government amendments 50 to 52, 59 and 60 are the result of productive discussions between the Wales Office, the Welsh Government and the Assembly Commission. Paragraph 2(1) of schedule 6 provides that the new reserved powers model will apply only to Assembly Bills that have been introduced, but that have not passed stage 1 in the Assembly’s legislative process before the day on which the reserved powers model comes into force, or that are introduced after that day. Passing stage 1 means that the Assembly has approved the general principles of a Bill.
Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 6 currently provides that an Assembly Bill that has been introduced under the conferred powers model, but that has not passed stage 1 before the day on which the reserved powers model comes into force, would fall. Amendment 59 removes that provision so that a Bill could still proceed under the new reserved powers model, even if it has not passed stage 1.
Amendment 60 introduces tailored transitional provisions into schedule 6 for relevant energy infrastructure applications. Applications that have been formally accepted for examination under the Planning Act 2008 will continue to be determined by the Secretary of State under that Act. Those that have not been formally accepted will be considered by Welsh Ministers under the devolved planning regime.
Amendments 50 to 52 make some sensible and necessary changes to the commencement provisions in clause 53. Let me quickly touch on amendment 52, because the hon. Member for Arfon mentioned it. It ensures that Welsh Ministers’ common law-type powers under clause 17 come into effect at the same time as the new reserved powers model—a change agreed with the Welsh Government.
Clause 53 provides the framework for commencing the provisions of the Bill and for implementing the reserved powers model. Most importantly, subsection (3) provides for the new reserved powers model—at clause 3 and schedules 1 and 2—to come into force on the day appointed by the Secretary of State by regulation. That day is called the “principal appointed day”. The Secretary of State must consult Welsh Ministers and the Presiding Officer before making the regulations that establish the principal appointed day. That is to ensure their views are fully taken into account in determining when the reserved powers model comes into force.
Under subsection (4), the other provisions of the Bill come into force on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints by regulations. That may include the regulations made under subsection (3). Indeed, it is the Government’s intention to bring into force most of the Bill’s provisions devolving further powers to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers at the same time as the reserved powers model—in other words, on the principal appointed day.
Subsection (6) requires the principal appointed day, or a day appointed by regulations made under subsection (4), to be at least four months after the day on which the regulations are made. That is to ensure sufficient time for the Assembly and the Welsh Government to make the appropriate arrangements for the new model. Finally, clause 54 sets out the short title of the Bill as being the Wales Act 2016.
Amendment 12 and new clause 6, which were submitted by the Labour party, seek to quadruple the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing limit, which was set in the Wales Act 2014, from £500 million to £2 billion. There are two considerations in relation to the borrowing limit: ensuring that borrowing is affordable for the Welsh Government and that it is appropriate within the fiscal position of the UK as a whole.
In relation to Welsh Government affordability, it is important to ensure that the Welsh Government have sufficient independent revenues to manage their borrowing costs. We therefore need to consider the balance between devolved tax revenues and borrowing. Had the Wales Act 2014 simply followed the precedent set at the time by the Scotland Act 2012, the Welsh Government would have ended up with a borrowing limit of around £100 million. However, the Government agreed to increase it to £500 million to enable the Welsh Government to proceed with the upgrade to the M4 in Wales—something this Government fully support, although we are still waiting for action from the Government in Cardiff Bay.
The existing borrowing limit is therefore relatively large, compared with the position in the Scotland Act 2012, and I would argue that it goes further. Even taking into account the Welsh rates of income tax, this limit remains relatively large and, therefore, appropriate. The Government do not therefore believe it is right to increase the Welsh Government’s £500 million capital borrowing limit. Even if this position changes in the future, the Wales Act 2014 already provides for the UK Government to increase the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing limit by secondary legislation.
New clause 4, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), seeks to assign a share of the VAT revenues generated in Wales to the Welsh Government in the same manner that a share of Scottish VAT revenues will be assigned to the Scottish Government following the Smith agreement. However, the Silk commission gave full consideration to the case for assigning a share of the VAT receipts generated in Wales, and while it recognised some of the arguments in favour, it ultimately recommended against VAT assignment in Wales. Unlike in Scotland, there is no consensus on this issue. I return to the fact that the Bill is moving through this House on the basis of consensus.
As we committed to do in the St David’s day agreement, the Government are considering the case and options for devolving air passenger duty to the Assembly, informed by a review of options to support English regional airports from the potential impacts of APD devolution. However, it is important to note that, as the hon. Gentleman knows to be true, the Silk commission did not recommend the devolving of APD in full, but the devolving of long haul only. It is important to bear in mind that when legislating on devolving a tax such as APD, we have to take into account the impact on other airports within the United Kingdom. We must also take into account whether, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West highlighted, the benefits that might arise for an airport owned by the Welsh Government in south Wales would justify the complexity and difficulties of the devolution process, in the context of the economic development and the transport links of north Wales. I very much doubt that.
We are therefore not of the view that the case has been made for devolving APD at this point, but we will remain open to listening to the arguments in future. I fully understand the importance of the aviation sector for creating jobs and growth in Wales. I think it is fair to say, though, that the hon. Gentleman’s arguments seemed akin to an argument for state aid for a state-owned asset. In the light of the fact that we have just voted to leave the European Union, he seems very keen to adopt the concept of state aid provision. However, the fact that the Welsh Government have decided to buy the airport does not, in itself, make an argument for devolving APD.
New clauses 8 and 9 relate to the devolution of corporation tax. Together, they intend to replicate for Wales the Northern Ireland corporation tax regime, as set out in the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Act 2015, which allows for devolution to the Northern Ireland Assembly of the power to set a Northern Ireland rate of corporation tax for certain trading income. Commencement of this legislation remains dependent on the Executive demonstrating that its finances are on  a sustainable footing. Northern Ireland faces a number of unique challenges that Wales does not. In particular, it has a land border with the very low corporation tax environment in the Republic of Ireland. The Northern Ireland corporation tax model has been specifically designed for Northern Ireland’s economy and needs, and would not be appropriate for Wales. Again, we are saying no to the hon. Gentleman’s claims.
I propose that clauses 22 to 54 and schedules 5 and 6 stand part of the Bill, and that amendments 47 to 52, and 59 and 60 are agreed to. I urge Hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 23 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36

Ben Bradshaw: I am going to tell the House a story about myself—although it is not just about me but about the thousands of people who use the Great Western Railway service every year, and the many thousands who have signed a petition protesting about its so-called new policy.
I have not owned a car for more than 20 years. Before being elected to the House and every week since then, I have cycled from this place to Paddington railway station, put my bicycle on a train, travelled back to Exeter, taken my bicycle off the train, and gone about my constituency business. At the end of the weekend, I have done the same in reverse. First Great Western—or Great Western Railway, as it has now rebranded itself—has had a perfectly good and workable cycling policy, which has encouraged people to book a space in advance but has allowed people such as me to turn up and, if there is space in the cycling carriage, to put their bicycles on board. There is a designated space at the front of the train, with room for six bicycles.
In the nearly 20 years for which I have represented Exeter in the House, I have generally not reserved a space. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of occasions on which I have arrived at Paddington or Exeter and not been able to get my bike on to a train because it has been full. There are nearly always spaces in the cycle carriages. So the House will understand why, when I was told by a Great Western Railway employee at Exeter station in April that the company was about to introduce a compulsory booking system for people with bicycles, I was somewhat concerned. I immediately asked to speak to a senior manager, who reassured me that this was not the case, and that discretion would be allowed. However, I took the precaution of writing to the managing director of Great Western Railway asking him to repeat that assurance. I explained to him the scenario that I have just outlined: it seemed to me to be ridiculous—Orwellian, even—that if people turned up at a station with a bicycle and there were spaces in the carriage designed for carrying bicycles, they should not be allowed to take their bicycle with them.
The managing director gave me a very reassuring response. On 26 April, he wrote:
“We understand that there will be times when booking is not possible and space is available on board.”
Booking, of course, is not possible for people like me, and many of the thousands of other people who do not know what train they will be able to catch. The business of the House is very unpredictable, as are my constituency commitments.
The managing director went on to say:
“Station staff have been briefed to allow bikes on board if this is the case, and we are checking that this message has reached colleagues, and you should not therefore have any issues travelling without booking a space for your cycle if there is space on board.”
That was back in April. I have to say that, in spite of that reassurance from Mark Hopwood, I was subsequently inundated with emails, letters, tweets and Facebook  messages from other people in my position, who told me that they had encountered difficulty getting their bikes on to a train without a reservation, even when there were spaces on board.
I wrote my letter to Mr Hopwood from a train on which I had put my bicycle, without a reservation, and there were spaces on board. To this day, at many Great Western Railway stations, there are signs and Tannoy announcements saying “You cannot put your bike on this train unless you have a reservation”. That is a lie. It is not true. It is not the policy, as Mr Hopwood told me in his letter. But it is still being represented as the policy at stations, in Tannoy announcements and in messages. So it is not surprising that there is confusion among GWR staff.
I was then contacted by a constituent of the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), who has also been lobbied on this. Sadly, she is unwell and cannot be here today. Her constituent had received a missive from another GWR management member that completely contradicted the assurance I had been given by Mr Hopwood. He said: “To be clear, we require you to reserve your bicycle on our high-speed trains, as our publicity states.” He went on to say, or to imply, that this was about preparing for the introduction of the new high-speed trains, which we are very much looking forward to serving our part of the world in the far south-west. I understand, however—the Minister may like to clarify this in her reply—that they are not due to come into service for another two years, so I was not quite sure why he was preparing for this event.
Simon Pritchard goes on to explain in his email that the reason they are doing this is that in the new high-speed trains the cycle spaces, instead of being in a designated carriage at the front of the train, will be in three separate areas along the train—two in each area, or more if the train is longer—so in order to try and avoid the chaos and confusion that would ensue from people trying to get their bikes on a train if they had not booked, they were trying to encourage people to book in advance. That is all very well, and I will come back to it in a moment.
Another problem that has exacerbated this whole issue is that it is incredibly difficult, complicated and clunky to book a bicycle on a train. People either have to telephone, although the telephone service operates only within certain working hours, or they can book online, but that can be done only when booking a ticket. So the only way people returning from a journey who already have a ticket can book is by phone, which, as I have said, does not operate for many hours of the week, or by going to a station. Of course, that is massively inconvenient for customers.
I went back to Mr Hopwood to seek clarification. I applied for this Adjournment debate, too, in the hope that this might make something happen. Indeed, as is so often the case when one secures an Adjournment debate, I received another letter from Mr Hopwood today, written last Friday, which is moderately reassuring. He has invited me to a meeting with cycling groups, which I am very happy to take up. He says that this discretion of people being allowed to take their bicycles on a train without a booking will continue, and implies it will do so until the new trains are introduced. He goes on to say they are working on a reservation system that will allow customers to take a bike on a train independently from their ticket purchase at short notice, even after the train  has started its journey. Up until now, people have only been able to book a bike on a train up to two hours before that train has started its journey. On the long journey from Penzance to Paddington that is completely impractical because by the time the train has started its journey and someone has decided what time train they are going to get, the train has already left the station at Penzance so they cannot book their bike on. He also says that there will be an online service, a telephone service and service at stations and that they hope to have this facility available to customers by the start of the December timetable.
That is a welcome improvement and concession by GWR, which I am convinced has happened only as a result of the pressure put on it by customers who have used its service over the years. Mr Hopwood then argues that this will provide the flexibility cyclists have asked for and allow bookings to be made much closer to departure. If that is the case, it is an improvement. However, he also goes on to claim that the requirement to book space on long-distance services is not unusual and he says that other railway companies—he quotes more than three, but the three I am concentrating on are the three I know: CrossCountry, Greater Anglia and South West Trains—also have mandated bicycle reservations.
Well, I can tell Mr Hopwood that I took my bicycle on a CrossCountry service on Saturday without a reservation. I have taken it up to Norwich on Greater Anglia in the past six months without a reservation, and I have also taken it on South West Trains without a reservation in the past six months, so what he says is simply not the case. At a time when we should be encouraging people to use sustainable transport and to travel sustainably, rail companies should be bending over backwards to encourage people to use their bicycles.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I completely agree. I have described the system as Orwellian partly because of the confusion and the contradictory messages that are being given to the public, but the hon. Lady is exactly right that this is a moment in our history when we should be encouraging people to use sustainable transport and to take their bikes on trains. If there is space on trains, people should be allowed to put their bikes on to them.
This is a classic example of a big organisation announcing a policy without consulting any of the people who use the service and without thinking through its implications and repercussions. It then has to backtrack and try to clarify the situation, but does not really clarify it properly. It ends up thinking, “Oh dear, we’ve got ourselves into a bit of a mess here. How are we going to get out of this?” If only it had consulted the people who actually use the service, it could have avoided this situation. I can think of many examples of this happening in public life. I am sure that the Minister, who has a lot on her plate at the moment, can think of some as well.
The company has introduced this mandatory reservation system, which turns out not to be mandatory, in advance of the introduction of the new trains, but why on earth did it not wait until the trains were actually introduced? Instead, it has introduced the policy now, which has been confusing and might put people off taking their bikes on trains. It is okay for me because I have this letter from Mr Hopwood saying that I can take my bike on a train without a reservation if there is space for it. I have put a copy of it on my iPhone so that if I ever have any problems, I can flash it at the guard and say, “Look, I have an assurance from your boss that this is okay.” I have also put a photograph of the letter on Twitter and elsewhere. For the ordinary tourist or non-regular traveller, however, the policy will be a real deterrent to their doing exactly what the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has said is the right thing to do.
I ask Great Western Railway to issue a clear, comprehensive clarification of its policy, and to make it absolutely clear publicly in the notices that it puts in railway stations and in the announcements on the tannoy, which are still inaccurate, that people can still put a bicycle on its trains without a reservation until the new trains are introduced. Also, as I mentioned a moment ago, Mr Hopwood is wrong about the practice on CrossCountry, Greater Anglia and South West Trains. Those trains already have a system whereby bicycles can be accommodated, with two at the front, two in the middle and two at the back. That is the system that Great Western is about to introduce. It is not difficult for someone to put their bicycle on a train if there is a space for it; they just need to move up and down the platform and put it into the space. This idea that people should be required to book in advance because of the new configuration of the trains, even if no one else has booked and spaces are available, is Orwellian and against the whole thrust of Government policy.
I hope that the Minister, given all the other problems on the railways that she is facing, will be able to have a quiet word with Great Western Railway and sort this issue out to reassure people who, like me, have been using the system perfectly happily for many years. This unnecessary change that has created an almighty mess and confusion, and I hope that she will be able to get Great Western to see sense.

Claire Perry: I thank the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for his long-term commitment to using the railways—like me, he is an assiduous user of Great Western Railway—and to cycling. There is a reason why the right hon. Gentleman looks as good as he does; I imagine that a lot of it is down to him cycling around the Exeter hills and dales. His commitment to his constituents is great. This debate is a perfect example of how something that might seem quite minor to many will be important to a relatively small number of people. By calling a debate and focusing on the issue, changes can actually happen. I want to address some of the main points and then some of the facts that the right hon. Gentleman said that he heard from the company.
It is not for the Government to specify every exact detail of a franchise holder’s interaction with its customers, but we set out the broad direction of travel, which is that customers with bicycles must be permitted on  trains. I am the first to recognise the importance of sustainable travel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) mentioned, and of joining up cycling and railway experiences as part of decarbonising our transport sector and contributing to good health. For many years, various policies have been applied across the country. We have benefited from the 40-year-old high-speed trains that have that wonderful guard’s van. They are almost an anachronism, but they have meant that cyclists can put their bikes all in one place in a way that is relatively easy to manage.
The right hon. Member for Exeter has experience of other operators, but it seems as though Great Western Railway is falling in line with other long-distance operators, including Virgin Trains East Coast and Virgin’s west coast franchise, that require reservations for all or part of some of their services. When its policy is implemented, 70% of Great Western Railway’s services will still take bicycles without a reservation.
When I was on the platform of Pewsey station on Saturday waiting to catch the 8.12 up to London, I heard the announcement mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I tend to read my ministerial box in advance, so I thought that I must mention it in my response to his debate. The announcement did make it sound as though the policy was mandatory, but what he knows, and what Great Western Railway has been at pains to point out, is that this is, in a way, rolling the turf for the introduction of the new intercity express programme trains, which we are all very much looking forward to. They will not have the guard’s van, but will instead have cycle spaces dotted around the carriage formations. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is perfectly okay for cyclists to push their bikes up and down, but we want the trains to run on time. We therefore want the loading of people, luggage and bicycles to be as efficient as possible, so there is some merit in the reservation system. The new trains will have more seats, more spaces and more frequent services to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and we are all looking forward to that.
Although I am looking to Great Western Railway to solve these issues, I was particularly interested to hear about the right hon. Gentleman’s experience of the implementation, because the policy does sound confusing and inconsistent. I have heard from the company that it absolutely recognises those points. It has no doubt been nudged by the right hon. Gentleman’s campaigning and by his securing of this debate, as it is improving its booking system. I went online myself and found that it is possible to reserve a cycle space when making an advance booking, but it is not possible to book if someone is not quite sure which train they will be  taking. I welcomed the company’s announcement that it will have a system in place by December through which people can make bicycle reservations almost as they show up to the station. I had also heard that the phone system was inadequate, so I was pleased to hear from the company that it has changed suppliers. No longer will it be sending calls over to India; they will be dealt with onshore. The right hon. Gentleman and other keen cyclists should be able to look forward to better, more consistent contact with the call centre.
It is important to recognise that the company, like many others, is doing a lot to invest in cycling, in addition to providing new cycle spaces on the new trains. I am intrigued about looking at new ways of solving this problem, because I find that although there are dedicated cycle spaces on many trains, and many rail users have folding bikes which can, in theory, fit in overhead compartments, all too often people will be on trains with bikes stuck in the aisles—that occurs particularly on crowded commuter trains going up the east coast. It would be great to see some innovation in rolling stock to allow bicycles to be accommodated in a different way, so I am encouraging the industry to think about how to do that.
I also recognise that companies are working hard to encourage people to cycle to stations and then leave their bikes there. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is in a minority in actually bringing his bike up to London. That shows what a dedicated cyclist he is, as many others leave their bike at the station. It is noteworthy that the company has already invested in 750 cycle spaces in the past two years and secured funding for another 600 spaces at 21 stations. It is also working with bike hire companies and on Brompton docks in many locations, as well as supporting a new innovative hire scheme at Bainton Bikes in Oxford, which uses Danish technology—in essence we are talking about a dedicated hire bike that can be secured to a regular, stand-alone cycle rack. That has lots of applications right across the country.
The company that we are discussing, like many others, is committed to improving the experience of cyclists who use its services, but I take the right hon. Gentleman’s points very seriously. I commend him for securing the debate and for making changes happen with the company already. As a keen cyclist, albeit not one who is brave enough to take my bike on the trains, and a keen user of Great Western Railway, I will be watching the implementation of and improvements to this policy with great interest.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.